Talk:Perspectives in Digital Culture/Web as Public and Private Space

'''Good work so far teams. One thought - public - 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 relating to that term? You seem to have a lot to say about privacy, so just thought you might want to think about the other elements in the equation''' GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

AN INTERESTING POINT HAS BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE "LAYOUT" SECTION: Delete the "Main Concepts" section title and make every numbered heading (1. Always on - 16. Bitcoin) into a SECTION, for improved readability? Please comment in "Layout" below...? --Bailie Richards (discuss • contribs) 22:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: If you are going to make a contribution within the discussion page or have a query in regards to an existing section, please check the contents table first to see if your query fits one of the ongoing discussions, if not make a new heading. It becomes very confusing when 4 topics are being discussed under one heading. Sorry for being pedantic, I'm just getting lost ! Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 12:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Introductions
Hey, I am Weston Romens and I am apart of Maroon Six and I am pumped to start contributing! --Wesromens (discuss • contribs) 16:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Hi, I am Shannon and I am part of Maroon Six (StirShannon (discuss • contribs) 19:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC))

Hi I am jack, part of maroon six JackHasABeard (discuss • contribs) 13:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey I am Scott, I am part of Maroon Six --86.177.1.140 (discuss) 17:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

My name is Emma Lagarde and I am part of Team Friendship Lag94 (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Cant wait to start contributing. War00003 (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

My name is Laura Smajdor and I am part of Convergers Assemble who will be contributing to this chapter of the Perspectives in Digital Culture Wikibook. Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 14:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Would be interested in this JackHasABeard (discuss • contribs) 14:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

My name is Daniel Ball and we are CONVERGERS ASSEMBLE! Danielball92 (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm in a 4 o'clock Digital Media seminar and I'm in a team that'll be contributing to this page. Lx07 (discuss • contribs) 14:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

My name is Jordan and I am a member of Team Friendship. JordanFerguson93 (discuss • contribs) 14:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Heya, I'm Bailie. I'll be contributing to this chapter of our Perspectives WikiBook. --Bailie Richards (discuss • contribs) 14:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I'm Scott, I don't have a group yet, but this one seems fun. Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm Kevin. I'll also be contributing to this particular chapter. Kem00094 (discuss • contribs) 15:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello there, my name's Jodie and I'm in Kevin's team, normally in the 3-4pm seminar slot. Looking forward to working with you all! #CONVERGERSASSEMBLE #TeamFriendship Davidones (discuss • contribs) 15:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Davidones

Hey, my name is Callum. No group yet but interested in this CallumBeard (discuss • contribs) 16:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I think my group picked this subject. Hopefully I'll hear from them soon! --PonyTailGregor (discuss • contribs) 16:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Laura and I'm in a team with Jodie & Kevin, who haven't even informed me that this was our chosen subject... THANKS GUYS but now I know I suppose! We'll need to figure out a team name soon. Xxlaurajane (discuss • contribs) 16:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I'm Stewart and I'm working on this page alongside Team Awesome!! Checkered shirt stewart (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Well hello there. My name's Kieran and I'll be one of the many people contributing to this project. Let's hope this won't be too difficult. Let's do this Team Friendship.Kieran Glasses (discuss • contribs) 17:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I'm Caitlin and I'm also a member of Team Friendship. Can't wait to start working on this! Caitlin OwlBag McGaff (discuss • contribs) 17:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I'm Lucia and I'm part of Convergers Assemble. See you soon! LuciaGaston (discuss • contribs) 17:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Digital Media has just become 110% more exciting. Blogs Due Tomorrow Rymgooko (discuss • contribs) 17:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a group yet but this page looks interesting. TuesdayBobbleHat (discuss • contribs) 17:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sean here.....lets get this done...LIKE A BOSS Seanmcl7 (discuss • contribs) 17:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

HEY HEY how's it goin gang, looks like I'm doin this here topic with Sean, Beth, Kevin, Jodie and Laura. Andrewpope912 (discuss • contribs) 17:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey! Good luck to everyone! Btellezmora (discuss • contribs) 17:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi I'm Warren, I'm part of Convergers Assemble. I'll be working on this one too, looks pretty interesting! Warrenhardie (discuss • contribs) 17:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I'm Amber, also part of Convergers Assemble, can't wait to start contributing! Amm00075 (discuss • contribs) 17:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This is going to be the best time of my life. I can't wait. Bjohnstonn (discuss • contribs) 03:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

let the contriubutions begin!!!!!Bubblehatmark (discuss • contribs) 13:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi I am Courtney, I am part of Team Awesome! Good work so far! --Courtney.hopp (discuss • contribs) 21:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Introduction
Hey guys! I was thinking the "overview" section might be unnecessary and maybe we can just write a good introduction. What do you all think? Btellezmora (discuss • contribs) 19:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

We could probably just do both, if the overview section is only 2 para then it won't do much harm to have?--Scottxit (discuss • contribs) 01:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Also I just added some more text onto the introduction and gave a few examples of what a private web space is. --Scottxit (discuss • contribs) 01:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

the first line of the introduction is a bit clunky. I was thinking of changing the existing line "Web as Public and Private Space is a typical phrase that refers to the characteristics, or functions of the World Wide Web" to something like "Thinking of the web as being a Public and Private space is a typical assumption about the function and character of the World Wide Web." Thought I would mention it here before changing someone elses hard work. JackHasABeard (discuss • contribs) 13:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That sounds good to me JackHasABeard --Scottxit (discuss • contribs) 15:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys I was just looking through the introduction which by the way looks really good but I was thinking that maybe we should try and explain how the web can be both private and public? Because right now it says that everything that requires a password is private and then gives the example of social media. But yes you do need a password for a social media account but that doesn't necessarily mean it's private, at least not in the way email is. Technically no one can see your emails but you unless you give them your password. But even though your social media account is protected by a password that doesn't mean it's only visible to you. If you don't put your account to private everyone on the web can see it, just like a public webpage and even when you put it to 'private' your friends/followers can still see your page. So the privacy of a social media account and an email account is very different and I know we shouldn't go into too much detail in the introduction but it still seems pretty important to include this, Not sure if all this makes sense? but let me know what you think! Lag94 (discuss • contribs) 19:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thats a good idea, the introduction needs to be a lot more feleshed out than it is, covering the whole book but very briefly. I think what you have got there is good so feel free to add it in there JackHasABeard (discuss • contribs) 20:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with you Lag94, it would be good to be as clear as possible in the introduction. I think it is more important to give an accurate and clear introduction and we can go into more detail in later chapters. --Scottxit (discuss • contribs) 20:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Just changed the introduction to include that bit! feel free to check and edit if it doesn't make sense or I made some mistakes, or if you just don't agree with what I have written..! Lag94 (discuss • contribs) 21:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That all looks fine to me Lag94 JackHasABeard (discuss • contribs) 12:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC) = First Thoughts on Topics =

Well then, let's get started, shall we? I think it's a good idea to start of with gathering together relatable theories and theorists, e.g. the material from the "Always-On Culture" lecture and associated readings I feel are relatable to web as public and private space as it circulates our habit of being constantly online and posting on social networking sites without really thinking about the consequences. The readings from that subject had theorists D. Boyd and Sherry Turkle. I'm going to start with Sherry Turkle's "Alone Together" and see if I can find any points specifically relatable to web as public and private space then I'll post it in the book. Maybe this is a good way for us to start out - picking some theorists and gathering as much relatable material as possible - obviously remembering our subject is far broader than one week's worth of class time ! EDIT: although possibly it could be better to get a broad aspect of different relatable subjects before going into specific material? What are everyone's thoughts? --PonyTailGregor (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

To PonyTailGregor and ALL! I think theorists is not a bad idea, however, it might help to first get a general layout in motion.

Like headings, subheadings, etc. And obviously, doing further reading into theorists will help develop these ideas into detailed sections.

So, here are just a few ideas, but please everyone add on to this list of topics! Many of these could use (or be) sub-headings but I will leave those out for the sake of organization... If anyone wants to start thinking of a logical way to organize, that'd be useful too.

1. Always-on... the tethered self, distinctions, boyd ( remember danah boyd does not capitalize her name )

2. Privacy (+ issues).. cookies, ownership of photographs, clickpaths, advertisements

3. Information Leaks.. government, private photos,

4. Social Media.. privacy controls, digital time machine

5. Impression Management

6. Online Disinhibition.. benign vs toxic, vonStackleberg

7. Terms and Conditions?

8. Streaming... live events, webcam chats

9. News and current events.. public space

10. Anonymity

If I missed any big ideas, add them on.

Browse here to see how everyone else organized their chapters, it's helpful!

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Digital_Media_and_Culture_Yearbook_2014

Bailie

--Bailie Richards (discuss • contribs) 23:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I like these topics!! Maybe we should find more topics for the web as a public sphere...For example, Habermas wrote about the public sphere, and there are many articles that connect his theory with the Internet. Also, we could write about how the web helps creating a global debate, how it connects people from different cultures and backgrounds... I don´t know, there are just ideas... I think it could be very useful to start thinking about the structure of the article. The title is Public and Private Space so, we could make a first division and make a "public space" section and "private space" section. Then, I guess it depends on how we approach to each one. I was thinking about starting to do some research about the private space, maybe about how we built an identity online or something like that. Any more ideas for the article structure? LuciaGaston (discuss • contribs) 10:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC) Lucia Gaston

The topics all seem good to me as well, are we splitting them up between groups or how are we working it?--86.177.1.140 (discuss) 16:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC) I really like these topics too, it gives us a great outline! R.E. LuciaGaston I've been thinking about the structure too and how we could efficiently split up our chapter for easy reading. I don't think splitting public space and private space would be as efficient as they are so intertwined and the concepts we will be discussing are so contentiously related to both. I think it would be easier to simply split up the chapter into main concepts. The main concepts we could use are the one Bailie has suggested. This will be easier also as the page is already split up into "introduction/main concepts etc". I think it would be better to structure our work like that; simply 1 to 10, or more --PonyTailGregor (discuss • contribs) 14:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I've put these main concepts onto the page, I think this can be viewed on "latest draft" section, and needs confirmed. Has anyone figured out how to make these concepts linked, so they would be titled within "1.2 Main Concepts" as, for example "1.2.1 Always on..." "1.2.2 Privacy" "1.2.3. Information" etc. ? --PonyTailGregor (discuss • contribs) 15:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Love all these topics, we could probably also talk about how public and private spaces are becoming blurred online. How people are able to argue that there are no such thing as private spaces anymore. Caitlin OwlBag McGaff (discuss • contribs) 18:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Great list of topics. I've started searching for articles about online disinhibition and anonymity, which somewhat overlap, in the hope that this will lead to additional concepts and discussion points that could later take the form of sub-headings. Possible things that I've got so far include: the 'nasty effect'; 'trolling'; internet vigilante groups e.g. Anonymous; legal consequences of online disinhibition e.g. jail sentences for 'trolls'; other limitations of online disinhibition (and anonymity) due to techniques such as 'doxing'; and websites such as 4chan, which exemplifies online disinhibition. The following can be a useful starting point for further research: http://libguides.stir.ac.uk/home Kem00094 (discuss • contribs) 19:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Bailie, these topics above are very interesting and the layout is pretty decent. The sub headings can be used to help us provide a detailed analysis/overview of our main concept (Web as Public and Private Space). Nevertheless, I think that before we go into the first approach on “Always-on... the tethered self, distinctions and Boyd”, I was thinking (you don’t have to agree with me) that we should start with actually defining the concept. What does Web as Public and Private Space mean?

As Greg mentioned numerous times in his Lectures, we should always look for the key words in any given concept, then individually explain them in relation to numerous theorists from Always on Culture including Boyd and Turkle. Of course other theorists can be used from different topics as long as they help us explain our main concept.

Like I said, you guys don’t have to agree with me (tell me that its rubbish), but I really think that we should try and ‘decode’ our main concept Web as Public and Private Space. I had a meeting with my group (Team Friendship) last Friday and we were discussing this approach, we looked for the key words like Public and Private, We then started to raise question like; What does it actually mean to go Public?, What does it mean to go Private? In regards to the Web. We should try and break down the term because it’s not an easy term to define, (trust me I tried looking it up on Google). Anyways, today I will be trying to decode the term, breaking it down and tearing it apart word by word. I will also try and look for some theorists that can help us gain a detailed understanding of the term. Does anyone agree with me or disagree?, I will be available to discuss throughout today Bubblehatmark (discuss • contribs) 10:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys I like this idea of these topics as a backbone. I do think that they will get tweaked along the way, I for example wanted to explore the area of spatiality of online citizenship (Zizi A. Papacharissi). Not sure what topic this would go under exactly but I can always make a further subheading or re-word a heading. Also I have changed them to sun-headings. What you need to do is when editing click 'Advanced' and there is a section for headings, just highlight and pick which level of heading you would like. Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 11:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Okay! All you say sounds good to me (mine was just an idea but yes, yours is better) I'll start to do some research about online identities if that is okay. Anyway, I still don't know how can we connect the private and the public sphere. I mean, the topics are great, but how can we link all of them into the public and private sphere. Therefore, I think is so useful what "Bubblehatmark" says about answer the question: "What does it actually mean to be public (or private)?LuciaGaston (discuss • contribs) 11:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I do agree with Lucia, these topics are great, but we MUST remember to focus on our topic ‘Web as Public and Private Space’. Like I said earlier, for the introduction maybe we should decode our main concept into two parts, ‘Web as Public Space’ and ‘Web as Private Space’. Now I know ‘PonyTailGregor’ mentioned that splitting Public Space and Private Space wouldn't be as efficient as they are “so intertwined”. However, this is really useful for the intro, it will be difficult for someone who lacks knowledge to understand ‘Web as Public and Private Space’, if we do not split our main concept, but ONLY for the introduction, and then possibly we could develop all the other ideas. It’s important to treat the Reader like an ‘idiot’, so let’s not get to complicated Bubblehatmark (discuss • contribs) 13:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Guys, I have been researching our main concept for the introduction, so far I came up with this

Web as Public and Private Space is a typical phrase that refers to the characteristics, or functions of the World Wide Web. The word Web refers to a series of interconnected documents (web pages) that are made accessible via the internet. (I will Footnote reference) A Public Web Space, in its simplest form, is any website or webpage on the internet that is made accessible to anyone with a web browser or internet access. A private Web Space refers to any website that requires a password from a registered user, and thus access is restricted.

I know that its not amazingly 'sophisticated' but I think that the above definitions/explanations are clear. What do you guys think?, I'm a little bit embarrassed.Bubblehatmark (discuss • contribs) 13:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Bubblehatmark, I think go for it ! I mean the whole point is that what you end up writing wil probably not be the final version anyway but it's a good base for people to start contributing and editing. I think your definition give good basis which can then be explored more in the introduction in terms of how each of these web spaces affects society and here this will give a good lead into each of the topics which follow. Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 14:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks 'Laurasmajdorboom', I will continue to edit this introduction on Microsoft Word, exploring the concept's terms in more depth and hopefully will upload this on Wednesday Latest.Bubblehatmark (discuss • contribs) 15:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC).

The introduction sounds like a good foundation for us to work up from! --86.177.1.140 (discuss) 16:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Great! I look forward to reading it. I am currently working on a brief entry for Online Disinhibition taking into account a lot of Suler's study from 2004. I will aim to post it later today. I welcome any changes and adjustments to the passage ( or if you all feel it is completely wrong or unrelated feel free to delete and replace). Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 15:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys, I've made a 'Limitations of Online Anonymity' subheading under 'Anonymity', so that the various ways in which the web as a private space is undermined/threatened can be compiled there. Please feel free to add or make changes to it, or remove/relocate it if you think it doesn't work. EDIT: I've also wrote up a general introduction for the anonymity section, just to get the ball rolling - this can, of course, be added to and/or amended. Kem00094 (discuss • contribs) 22:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Maria! I'm thinking about the topic of web as a public space, particularly in terms of entrepreneurship and how the web is used as a global marketing platform. Do you think it would be ok to start a section on this topic? Mariaviola (discuss • contribs) 17:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)(discuss • contribs) 17:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maria! I would suggest a new heading titled something like ==Marketing campaigns Used in Private and Public Website Spaces== And then perhaps subsections titled Entrepreneurship in Public Web Domains and Corporate Advertising Campaigns in Private Spaces (Private space as defined in the introduction of this wikibook page). Perhaps I could work on it with you and I could add to a section? We could perhaps discuss advertising regarding private Facebook accounts etc? Let me know what you think. Thank you! Davidones (discuss • contribs) 21:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Maria, I've just seen your contribution "Web as a Public Space for Business Creation and Promotion". You've put it into the social media section rather than creating a new heading. I've corrected your mistake. I've put it after Social Media. I agree with you Jodie that we should split up this topic further as well. I'll try to come up with something useful for this section just now. --PonyTailGregor (discuss • contribs) 14:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Also, Maria, just to let you know, you don't need to put a signature on the book page, your contributions will be seen in the history page when it comes to being marked. --PonyTailGregor (discuss • contribs) 14:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC) One more thing, I moved the paragraph on Jurgen Harbermas to the Overview section, as it is quite a general statement. Let's see if anyone else can add to it? --PonyTailGregor (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Hi, Thanks for all that feedback. I have primarily been working on the Web for business creation and promotion and wondered if we should re-name it to 'Web as a Commercial Space' what do you think?. I also have to add a couple of references and have more information to add on e-commerce. Will also add sub-titles. Mariaviola (discuss • contribs) 22:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Online Disinhibition Entry
HI Laura, I noticed a few small spelling mistakes on your post and have fixed them for you. Other than that your content is very good, and is a great start for the wikibook. I think maybe it could be improved by linking to the overall chapter, for example mentioning which parts are appropriate to the public and private spaces. Danielball92 (discuss • contribs) 16:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah okay thanks for fixing those Danielball92, I think I was just in a bit of a hurry to have something posted and forgot to double check what I was posting ! Yeah I know that it currently just seems like a chuck thrown in but I wasn't sure exactly how to locate it within the chapter topic. I will try to do a little bit more research and maybe find a few case studies that tap into the private and public spheres and try to link it this way. Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 16:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I've added another concept (the 'Nasty Effect') to the online disinhibition section (hopefully it makes sense). It's intended as a separate point from the points above it - just wanted to make that clear in the event that it causes any confusion. Although, we may wish to consider editing the introductory paragraph for online disinhibition so that any future subheadings aren't mistaken as being related to Suler's six reasons. Anyway, great work - it's nice to see the page coming along. Cheers. Kem00094 (discuss • contribs) 21:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kem00094, I have a little issue with your contributution in that I wasn't naming phenomenon's from different case studies and theorists I was naming the 6 reasons that Suler outlined. I feel like maybe you might need to add this to a different section or start a new section. Thanks. Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 11:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Laura, that's absolutely fine. I'm assuming you or someone else moved it before I got around to it, as I see it has already been relocated, which is appreciated. Apologies for the late response. Kem00094 (discuss • contribs) 22:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys I was thinking to further explain this phenomenon I thought it might be useful to maybe include some case studies which can be summarised and perhaps even briefly analysed. I was thinking maybe cases in which twitter comments have resulted in arrests etc. here's the kind of thing I was thinking we could look at, bear in mind it is an article from the daily mail but it is just food for thought. I might start writing up some stuff if you guys think its a good idea. Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 17:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

HI laura, were you thinking of a sub section specifically for case studies? I have been looking online and there are many examples that I have found that could highlight the kind of actions that have been taken against people for their behaviour online. It could be helpful to have a sub section highlighting some of the examples. Just a thought. Danielball92 (discuss • contribs) 11:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Daniel, yeah I was thinking that. I mean there's been quite a bit of discussion on here about how messy this page is and how the content needs cleaned up but I really think that we would benefit from some additional sub heading and sections within the main concepts. The more depth they have the more quality of the the information will increase. We can compress and tidy up once we have all the content. I say go for it, like I said I might start writing some stuff up to and we can collaborate. Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 11:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay I started a sub section for this and included one example so far. Everyone feel free to add more examples and of course anything else appropriate. I will add more examples too. Danielball92 (discuss • contribs) 12:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Laura, I've added to the Dissociative Anonymity section with an example of what could be considered dissociative anonymity. Hope you don't mind, as you made a good section and I could not help myself! Davidones (discuss • contribs) 23:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah absolutely the more the better although keep in mind that Gamergate has been discussed elsewhere in the chapter. Also we now have a bit of a balance issue where the other reasons would benefit from a longer explanation. I will start looking into it. Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 10:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There's some really good content in this section but I can't help thinking that it looks a little messy with all the different formatting? Would anyone mind if I fixed it and made it a lil cleaner? Bjohnstonn (discuss • contribs) 16:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be good! The entry could use some tidying up, formatting and the like. Andrewpope912 (discuss • contribs) 16:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Here I know we're a minute til deadline but should the last bit about crowdfunding definitely be in the online disinhibition section? Andrewpope912 (discuss • contribs) 16:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Citizen Journalism
Hey I thought I would create this as I'm not sure about the relevance of citizen journalism in the chapter, I'm sure it is relevent could someone just clarify why so I am less lost please? Thanks --Scottxit (discuss • contribs) 19:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

After reading the section it seems pretty relevant to me :) --PonyTailGregor (discuss • contribs) 13:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I added a paragraph about common concerns and criticisms regarding citizen journalism. I'm still reading about it, so I might come up with some improvements later! Lx07 (discuss • contribs) 22:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I made some changes to the section about activism. It was something like 'CJ also takes the form of activism'. But I think CJ does not actually take form of it, but facilitates it, as news flow in social media can make people understand the political topics and may motivate them to take part in them. And I have added another example, the Umbrella Revolution in Hong Kong to support the argument. Another thing is, I am not sure if media companies collecting opinions of the public towards the Scottish referendum from the internet is a kind of CJ, since the citizens were expressing their own preferences, but not reporting news or information other members of the public should know, so they were not actually generating news, it's just their opinions were collected and made into news by the media companies. Does that make sense? Austinechan (discuss • contribs) 00:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Austinechan, I would say that examples Bailie mentioned are relevant since as far as I understand they involve citizens "playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analysing, and disseminating news and information" (definition of citizen journalism from We Media: How Audiences are Shaping the Future of News and Information by Shayne Bowman and Chris Willis.) One could obviously argue about their objectivity though. Lx07 (discuss • contribs) 04:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Security Topic?
Hey guys! I've been looking over the topics and really liking it so far. I feel like we need something like a security topic as well though. Obviously a lot of this fits in with the privacy topic, such as cookies and ownership etc. But I think we should also be looking into how people themselves manage to protect themselves online. I am not an expert on the internet but things like encrypting and codes so that it is also made harder for potential hackers to get unto whatever you are doing on the computer. I thought this might fit into our topics as well somewhere. but let me know what you think! Lag94 (discuss • contribs) 21:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lag, I agree that it would fit in somewhere; it definitely seems relevant. Will just need a bit of research, of course. Great suggestion. Kem00094 (discuss • contribs) 22:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi again! I´ve been doing some research about online identity and apparently, it is next week topic! In the power point presentation there is a slide that can be useful to organize the wikibook structure, because it is about some topics we have already considered. I copy it here, and if you like it, I think it can be a easy way to organize the topics (adding as much topics as you want) What do you think? LuciaGaston (discuss • contribs) 00:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lag, I was wondering whether we should include government surveillance as a security concern? Like hackers, the government seem to be extending their influence and decreasing the privacy of internet users. So it might make sense to discuss how government surveillance affects online privacy? Warrenhardie (discuss • contribs) 20:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Warren, i think that is a great idea and right now I'm doing some research on surveillance and some of the theories that might apply to this. So I'm hoping to have something substantial to say about that soon! Lag94 (discuss • contribs) 13:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys! I have just added a Surveillance topic to the table of contents, because I thought we really needed one, because I don't think it completely fits under privacy, but if you guys disagree I'm sure we can change that. I have also put in the economic surveillance entry as a start and to get the topic going, I'm sure there is much more to find on it as well though. Feel very free to change anything or edit if you think something is missing or not completely right. Lag94 (discuss • contribs) 15:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Surveillance topic sounds great. It's something I'm really interested in so I'll be looking to write a lot of content for that. I don't think we need to merge security and surveillance, tbh. They both seem to be pretty separate, but we could maybe link the two somehow? Warrenhardie (discuss • contribs) 23:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey I have just edited the surveillance topic, added an extra term and explained it all a bit better and added some more things that I found while researching. Would be great if someone could look over it to check it if it all makes sense! Lag94 (discuss • contribs) 14:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel like we should include something of the work of Edward Snowden. I'm not sure where would be best for this topic, could be put in either Privacy, Surveillance, or Information Leeks sections. I'll write out a part and put it in Privacy for now. If anyone thinks it should go somewhere else instead just go ahead and move it --PonyTailGregor (discuss • contribs) 13:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I changed my mind and put the Edward Snowden part in Surveillance; Political Electronic Surveillance --PonyTailGregor (discuss • contribs) 13:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, great topic Lag and I think we could also add something on how we are constantly vulnerable to being located. We accept many apps or services terms of conditions which includes us being able to be located at any point in time while using the app. I will try and provide some further research into this.--Wesromens (discuss • contribs) 17:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

As we continue the forward plunge into new technology and social media it is apparent that our specific location as users, is inherently easier and easier to get a hold of. Apps such as Find My Friends and Gone Out - Later Folks enables users to locate there friends or family very easily but are also vulnerable to having strangers locate them as well. Our security is always at risk when using our phones so it is imperative to educate yourself and others on how to turn on or off your location services on apps as well as your phone.--Wesromens (discuss • contribs) 18:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey PonytailGregor great work on the Edward Snowden bit! I was just thinking when you talk about the debates it has sparked and how we know how much the government is actually spying on us we should try to be a little more specific. Edward Snowden didn't just trigger debates about this in the US, because once Edward Snowden revealed the extent to which the US spied on the rest of the world it was also exposed that other countries such as germany and the UK did this. So although what Edward Snowden did was predominantly based in the US he also held files about the GCHQ etc. so maybe we should try to expand on that a little bit?

Hey Wesromens! that sounds great and I had been thinking along the same lines as well just having a hard time finding any resources to back it up! Lag94 (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I added an "Other High Profile Hacking Incidents" section under the hacking section. I made a couple examples so far but there are plenty more that could be talked about. Danielball92 (discuss • contribs) 14:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Online Identity:

Impressionistic -Representation: profiles, images, data trails,consumptions patterns etc. all (to anextent, and in various ways) represent us as individuals -Narrative: Our use of online technologies can tell us and other people about who we are -Realism: Our representations and online narratives may be accurate, realistic,authentic. //Alternatively, they may inaccurate,unrealistic, inauthentic //Fidelity; high/low definition Empirical -Anonymity: Roleplaying; democratization of experience; freedom of expression; disinhibition; disclosure; stalking; cyberbullying -Security: Identity theft; fraud; deception -Privacy: Surveillance; data farming; publicly-viewable information often equated with open season/“fair game” trolling -Production and Consumption:  Creative practices; the market

Hey LuciaGaston, I actually like the topic of ‘Online Identity’, it seems like a very useful way to help us analyse and explain our main concept. The empirical issues in Online Identity is quite significant due to the fact that it discusses ‘Privacy’ issues such as surveillance and also it discusses ‘Security’ issues like identity theft, fraud and deception. These issues can help us explain the phrase ‘Web as Private Space’ as opposed to Public. Nice….Bubblehatmark (discuss • contribs) 10:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Introduction Discussion:

So, I have started the introduction to our main concept ‘Web as Public and Private Space’, and just before I upload it(tomorrow), I just wanted to know what you guys think? you can totally disagree with me

Web as Public and Private Space is a typical phrase that refers to the characteristics, or functions of the World Wide Web. The word Web refers to a series of interconnected documents (web pages) that enable users of one computer to access information stored on another through the Internet. (I need to Reference here in footnote) A Public Web Space, in its simplest form, is any website or webpage on the internet that is made accessible to anyone with a web browser or internet access. A private Web Space refers to any website that requires a password from a registered user, and thus access is restricted.

By the way does anyone know how to use Footnotes on our wikibook page?, also does our References have to be in Alphabetical order? Bubblehatmark (discuss • contribs) 10:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Bubblehatmark. When you have written your reference/quote/point etc. click your mouse at the end of the sentence and in the toolbox where you can edit font etc. there's a little picture of a book just click that and a window will pop up for you to place your citation. I think the footnotes organise themselves according to when they appear in the text. I think. Your intro is very good !Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 11:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Laurasmajdorboom, Bubblehatmark (discuss • contribs) 11:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Bubblehatmark,your intro sounds good as a short starting point, I'm not sure how long it should be but I think you should also introduce some of the main topics related to the issue specifically that we expand on in the main body like always on,security and privacy,online disinhibition etc but just touch on them not in too much detail. JordanFerguson93 (discuss • contribs) 15:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I totally agree with you JordanFerguson93, maybe I should try and include in the introduction some of the topics that are going to be discussed in the wikibook page. I’ve been looking at last year’s wikibook project, and I was wondering whether or not we should include an ‘overview’ which will come after the introduction. Now in this overview we can discuss some of the topics we are going to be exploring, obviously we would not go into too much detail in the overview, but I think this would help structure our wikibook page, making it much easier for people to read and understand. Bubblehatmark (discuss • contribs) 11:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Laurasmajdorboom, I have been reading over the online disinhibition entry as that's what iv been looking into as well, I think that the difference between benign and toxic could be better explained as its not very clear at the moment. Ill add some of my stuff and we can go from there. JordanFerguson93 (discuss • contribs) 15:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Below is my version of Online disinhibition. I would like to combine mine and the one that's there. I really like the study that's been used and Suler's 6 factors of disinhibition sound good too. I have gone a bit more in depth with explaining what online disinhibition actually is and with more info on benign and toxic and how Suler explains the whole idea as I feel it needs to be clearer and more in depth as it is an important topic. Let me know what you think before I edit, (i.e what we should keepand what we should take out/ add) and hopefully we can combine the two and make it better :) Thanks JordanFerguson93 (discuss • contribs) 17:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Online disinhibition

Online Disinhibition was first identified by John Suler,2004. It refers to individuals who take on a different persona online and behave differently than they would in the real world. This can be in both positive and negative ways. There are two opposing types of online disinhibition, Benign disinhibition is where one shares overly private and personal information online. It often includes exaggerated acts of kindness and selflessness towards others. This is the nice side to online disinhibition but it doesn’t come without its flaws. Sharing private information online can be risky, you never know whose watching.

In contrast to this is Toxic disinhibition, people who take on this online role experiment with bad language, anger and threatening behaviour which today could be described as "Trolling" and in the wider sense Cyber-bullying. For some, part of this toxic online persona is engaging in the “dark underworld” of the web as described by Suler,2004. This underworld includes pornography, crime and violence, things most would not pursue in the real world.

Suler explains why these types of disinhibition occur, he believes it to be a cross over between what is culturally relative and acceptable to an individual as well as their psychological dynamics. He believes these factors blur the lines between whether a person engages in positive or negative online disinhibition. JordanFerguson93 (discuss • contribs) 17:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi JordanFerguson93 that fine do whatever you feel needs to be improved on just try to add rather than cut a lot of whats already there ( unless it is untrue or irrelevant) also could you please post under the correct heading as it gets very confusing trying to understand what converstaion is in relation to what. Thanks a lot Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 10:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Me again, I think I came off a bit off in that last comment what I meant was maybe replace my introduction bit with yours but perhaps leave the reasons and maybe add to them ? Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 10:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Always On
Hey I have made a very brief entry on the Always on section just to get the ball rolling. Like I said it is very very brief and I plan on adding more to it later but in the mean time feel free to start adding things or editing what I have uploaded. I thought it might be a good idea to maybe split the section up slightly into sub-sections that cover things like relationships between physical spaces and the always on culture, the cost of always being on, the creation of ecosystems etc. just some suggestions let me know what you guys think. thanks Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 10:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Laurasmajdorboom, I actually like your brief entry, it’s clear and understandable. Like Greg said the wikibook page is “a developing process”, the only thing to do with this brief entry is to continue to add more content to it. Overall this is a very good start, I will try and do some more research on this and also contribute. By the way I have uploaded an introduction to our main concept, feel free to edit. I’m thinking of placing an overview heading after the introduction, I have already started planning it, but I’m not sure whether or not an overview would be useful. I mean in the overview we could try and bring all these concepts together, making them into a short paragraph, therefore the reader does not open our page and become overwhelmed with all this information that he/she has never even heard of.Bubblehatmark (discuss • contribs) 11:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Bubblehatmark thanks for your comments yeah I think this way rather than one person having to write thousands of words we can all chip in bits at a time. Yeah I definitely think we have to make the page more user friendly, not sure if its worthwhile doing that just yet or waiting until we have most of the main ideas in. Actually thinking about it, it probably is better to do it now, it is all a bit of a riot right now. Also just wanted to say how awesome the whole chapter is coming along ! we've all managed to do so much in so little time! Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 11:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Laurajdorboom, Im doing always on too. Loved your entry so far. Do you think it's a good idea to add in things about Big Brother as a whole to this section of the project or leave it for another part. I was thinking it tied in but I'm really not sure. It could be added under a section like 'the ramifications of being always-on". I'll try and do as much research as I can within the next few days Samantha late (discuss • contribs)

Hey Samantha late, yup totally go for it ! what's there is really just an overview of the topic and I think it would benefit from some addition areas. the ramifications idea is great I think. I will start looking at other areas too and we can get the subject expanded Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 14:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Guys, just a reminder that danah boyd does NOT capitalise her name. it's written "danah boy". Btellezmora (discuss • contribs) 18:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Laurajdorboom I was also thinking (in line with the ramifications sub-heading) about adding something to do with the lengths people will go to to stop themselves from being 'always on' eg apps people install to limit themselves and whatnot Samantha late (discuss • contribs) 13:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Guys, I'm wanting to add a section about danah boyd herself --- just a little background about the theorist but I can't figure out how to make it stand out because it's not physically about BEING always on. I don't know whether to make another section on theorists or put it in bold? I might just add it in and if anyone knows how to edit it they can go ahead Samantha late (discuss • contribs) 12:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Just made it its own section because it didn't really fit -- feel free to add to it. I think we should add other 'sections' for sub-topics. Just seems to flow better Samantha late (discuss • contribs) 12:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, I really like your work so far on this section! I took the liberty of adding an image of danah boyd to add some spice to the page!

Hi! I like this section so much! I have seen you have a small section about advantages, but you don't have one about disvantages. It may be good to add one, just to have a good structure with both advantages and disvantages. If you want, I can work on it. What do you think? LuciaGaston (discuss • contribs) 18:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, what about our public image online, is this relatable to Always-On culture? I think relating it to Sherry Turkle's work would make this very relevant to web as a public space. Very relatable to all of the impressionistic components to our online identity as Greg explained it in this week's lecture. Anyone agree? I'll put a section on Sherry Turkle here later today. --PonyTailGregor (discuss • contribs) 12:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC) p.s. I know there is a section on Online Identity in the Social Media section too, but I think in relating it to Always-On culture as-well can bring us a lot more detail into our online public life --PonyTailGregor (discuss • contribs) 12:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Good idea ponytailgregor, the section focuses heavily on the private and would benefit from a Turkle's perspectives based around public image. Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 12:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, great work so far! I added a link to danah boyd's page on Wikipedia. I also added a hyphen in Always-on culture so that it's the same as in the heading. But tell me what you guys think about it - should it be 'always on', Always-on or Always-On (or some other version)? I was thinking we should probably agree on one way of writing it so that our page is consistent! Lx07 (discuss • contribs) 21:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys this is something I wrote that I think would be a great shift in how we think of 'Always On' Oppositely, it is important to understand that because the advancement of technology is at such a rapid pace children are at risk of becoming addicted to their devices. Equally, children at earlier ages are getting connected with this always on culture and this gives them a chance to look at whatever they want when they want. As of right now, parents have to become more aware of the dangers of this always on culture and be very careful with their children and the technology that they have.--Wesromens (discuss • contribs) 13:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Structuring issue
Hey guys, can someone try a place the introduction section at the top of the wikibook page, instead of underneath the blue box. Thanks.Bubblehatmark (discuss • contribs) 11:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey again, think I have managed to do it. let me know if this is the kind of thing you were after. I learned how to do it from this page so have a look if you want to know more about the positioning of the table of contents. Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 11:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, you are a genius. Feel free to edit the intro by the way. Bubblehatmark (discuss • contribs) 12:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Was just wondering if the introduction was moved on purpose or if it was just a side effect of someone editing something ? I think that an introduction and overview at the top would be very beneficial, make it a bit less intimidating maybe. Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 17:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes! I think that if we could start to condense some information to make it more concise and flow it would be advantageous.--Wesromens (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Created an 'Overview' section
I've been looking at wikibook projects from previous years (2014 in particular) and I saw that they used an ‘Overview’ section to explain their main concepts, everything was put into two paragraphs summing up their main points. This is really useful for us since we have so many concepts to discuss, its best to have an overview. Now I'm not saying that we should summarize absolutely everything but maybe two or three main concepts and a theoretical framework. I have started planning a draft which will be uploaded later this week, but everyone should try and add to it, as I'm only typing what I know. Bubblehatmark (discuss • contribs) 12:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Bubblehatmark, I also seen this 'Overview' section on the 2014 Wikibook Project, I think it sounds like a great idea! With so many concepts an overview would be a great summaritive tool for us to have at our disposal, I have a few ideas for it but I think if you post your draft then we can add/edit to it as I guess that is the idea behind this project. --Scottxit (discuss • contribs) 01:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC) Nicely done + public space 

Hey all. WOW, I just have to say that everything is looking awesome! I think we are definitely on the right track. As far as organization goes, I think we are almost ready to reorganize but not quite. There is still a lot of information to be added. I think the best way to do this might be, if you're working on a particular topic and have a good idea of how to make it into it's own heading, go ahead and do so, even if you don't fill in all of the information, you could make subheadings for someone else to fill in.

Laura, I like the always-on entry, it's an excellent starting point. Mark, thanks for your consistent guidance, and your intro has been helpful as this really is quite a broad subject. Thanks to Gregor for adding all of those headings in- A rough but necessary first step. And to whoever did the social media entry, well done and very detailed! We rock!

OKAY all of that aside, today I will be spending my time researching more about the "Web as Public Space" aspect of our topic. In particular, the news and current events headings, which I might organize if I can. I will probably discuss things such as news websites, blogs, viral stories/videos, and how the everyday person can contribute to the discussion because of cell phone cameras, discussion boards, etc. These are just my first thoughts on the subject and I'm sure I'll change/add a little bit, but does anyone have any comments or suggestions about these ideas? Thanks much.

--Bailie Richards (discuss • contribs) 12:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey just added a brief explanation of hacking because I never noticed one anywhere else. If there is one and I missed it then my mistake --Checkered shirt stewart (discuss • contribs) 06:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I was thinking that the Celebrity Photo Hack 2014 could use some sources, so I added references to some relevant web pages. But feel free to add more! Usually the more sources, the better, right? Lx07 (discuss • contribs) 22:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Terms and Conditions
Hey, thinking of adding this to the terms and conditions section as a starting point, let me know what you think and feel free to edit :)JordanFerguson93 (discuss • contribs) 17:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The web is full of terms and conditions, documents full of general or specific rules, requirements and terms of use. These form a binding contract or agreement between the service and the user before access or download. Users get the option to agree or disagree to these terms by ticking a box. They can range from 1 page bullet points to over 30 pages of documents with complicated legal jargon. In the use of websites, these rules are usually referred to as “terms of service” and are mostly in the form of a disclaimer. A survey by the Guardian found that only 7% of people actually read the full terms when purchasing a product or service online, while a fifth said they have suffered from not doing so. Furthermore 43% of those who don’t read the terms and conditions said they are boring or difficult to understand.

As a result of ignoring the small print and its difficulty to understand, one in 10 have ended up bound to longer contract’s than they thought and one in 20 have lost money by not being able to cancel or amend services they had “agreed” to. JordanFerguson93 (discuss • contribs) 17:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess you got the hang of signing in, Jordan?!!! Very nice work so far by the way - you're giving last year a real run for their money! GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 17:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Greg, yeah thankfully someone pointed that out to me on the reading room! I feel a bit stupid now, I thought I was permanently logged in and I was logged in on another tab and on my phone so maybe that had something to do with it! Thanks JordanFerguson93 (discuss • contribs) 17:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi!! I did the social media entry, so thank you Bailie Richards! However, feel free to change whatever you want! LuciaGaston (discuss • contribs) 22:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Anonymity Entry
Thought I’d create a subheading here so that this entry could be more easily discussed. As I’ve said in an earlier comment, I’ve posted a general introduction and have been working on things which may hinder users’ online anonymity. I’m thinking about next doing a sub-section for ways in which people safeguard their online anonymity. Hopefully everything done so far is on the right track – feel free to edit anything which isn't. If anyone has further contributions/ideas that they want to add, please do join in. Cheers. Kem00094 (discuss • contribs) 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kevin. I've changed your subheading to a new heading because it has nothing to do with Terms and Conditions or Bailie's Nicely Done section. Jordan I would suggest putting the Terms and Conditions section under a new heading also, or I could change this if you wish. Kevin I was hoping to contribute to the section you have thus-far been working on by adding a new entry under Anonymity, discussing the dangers of anonymity on the web and how this links to 'trolling' etc. Let me know what you think about this suggestion. Davidones (discuss • contribs) 21:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Davidones, that sounds good to me. We could definitely do with a more in-depth section in regards to the relationship between anonymity and cyber-crime. I'd go for it. Kem00094 (discuss • contribs) 21:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That's great Kevin, I'll start working on it now. Davidones (discuss • contribs) 21:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, I wrote a brief entry on cyber crime in regards to online anonymity. Feel free to add to my post or give suggestions as to what else I could add. --Courtney.hopp (discuss • contribs) 21:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi courtney! Thanks for your contribution. I'll think about some more suggestions for you. Davidones (discuss • contribs) 22:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I've collected a few sources on cyber bullying through the anonymity of Formspring and was hoping to add it in. Let me know if you think this is a good idea and relevant enough. Xxlaurajane (discuss • contribs) 22:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Courtney, I think it's good that you've acknowledged that online anonymity is also advantageous to those who abuse it, such as cyber bullies, and not just to casual users. Nice work with all the anonymity entries. I personally can't think of anything else to add to the section without rehashing points discussed in the Deep Web topic. Hopefully something else will come to mind.

Hi Laura, sounds good. You could paste it here first if you're not sure and would like some more feedback. Kem00094 (discuss • contribs) 22:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Laura. I think that could fit into several categories. Maybe it might fit into the Dissociative Anonymity section? Thanks, Jodie Davidones (discuss • contribs) 23:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank folks. I'll get this little addition written up today and post it this evening. Thanks Jodie for the suggestion on where to put it. I think the Dissociative Anonymity section is perfect for it. Xxlaurajane (discuss • contribs) 13:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I have added to the Dissociative Anonymity section of our Wikibook. Please feel free to read over it and give me some feedback below. Thanks Xxlaurajane (discuss • contribs) 00:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Laura, no problem at all regarding my suggestion. The Dissociative Anonymity section is looking good, I think. Not certain which exact part you have contributed to but overall it's great! Davidones (discuss • contribs) 11:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Web as a public space
Hi everyone! I have been working a little in the topic of the web as a public space in which comment news, have a public debate, etc... I have published a few paragraphs about it, but I think we still need more information, and maybe find some sub-topics to include on it. Have a look and tell me what you think! And feel free to change or add whatever you want. Also, English is not my first language, so so sorry if I have grammar mistakes. LuciaGaston (discuss • contribs) 22:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, Lucia. I'm going to work on this topic with you! My first step is going to be a few grammar edits which will be done in the next 30 minutes or so. I'm also working on composing a subheading about camera phones and how people contribute to current events. I don't have a title for the subheading yet but... I will let you know as soon as I do! --Bailie Richards (discuss • contribs) 22:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, my entry will be about "Citizen Journalism and Secret Photography." Please leave those topics to me. Thanks! --Bailie Richards (discuss • contribs) 23:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, all yours! And thank you for the grammar edits! LuciaGaston (discuss • contribs) 23:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Done with the grammar. I changed some words as well, just to make things flow. I think that when I do add my subheading to our section, I might make yours into a subheading as well. This will require adding an overview of the topic in general. What shall we call this main heading? "News Media" maybe, or "News and the Media," "Web as public engagement with current events," "Web and current events," "News reporting on the web"... eh I'm sure there is something better... --Bailie Richards (discuss • contribs) 23:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Davidones,yes that's fine,go ahead and put my bit on terms and conditions under a new heading. Thanks JordanFerguson93 (discuss • contribs) 01:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ohhhhhkay I've added a subheading titled "Citizen Journalism" if anyone wants to revise or what have you. Lucia, I moved your section to a subheading and titled it "Advantages and disadvantages of dialog with news media." I hope you don't mind! Feel free to change the title, I didn't know what to put exactly! Also changed the main title to "Web and news media," does that sound good? Added a very brief intro there as well. Cheers! --Bailie Richards (discuss • contribs) 04:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Would talking about how social media affects social and political movements, like the ones in Egypt, come under "Social media as a public space" or "Citizen Journalism"? What do you all think because I've found a few really good sources about it Caitlin OwlBag McGaff (discuss • contribs) 22:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, well of course it fits into both... The whole situation contains examples of citizen journalism, but the specific example I used of the protests being organized over blogging is more in the social media realm, yes. Feel free to use that example eslewhere, I think I will delete it as I've already given two examples of citizen journalism and it doesn't fit as well. Thanks for bringing that up. --Bailie Richards (discuss • contribs) 04:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, i've not completely finished my post about twitters affect on society but i seem to have linked it wrong and i don't know how i've done it. wuld somebody be able to help me out, either by messaging me to tell me how or just editing it, thanks. Caitlin OwlBag McGaff (discuss • contribs) 19:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I fixed it, turns out I was using the link option instead of the reference option...silly Caitlin OwlBag McGaff (discuss • contribs) 23:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bailie! The titles sound good for me! Sorry I didnt answer until now but I dont have WiFi access these days! I will be able to read everything at the end of the week!LuciaGaston (discuss • contribs) 20:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi again! I have been reading the book and I think it looks really well! However, I have noticed we dont have anything in the "streaming" section. I can do some research about it, but I think is going to be a short section so, it may be better to include it into this section and maybe write something about live events and how the media prepare them...what do you think? LuciaGaston (discuss • contribs) 16:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey yeah that seems to make sense to me. Don't think there is all that much to say about it either so we might as well fit it in with something else. Lag94 (discuss • contribs) 20:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay! Yesterday I published a paragraph about it, but we can add whatever you want. What could be in the same section that media events? LuciaGaston (discuss • contribs) 10:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I was just about to post something about YouTube, but do you guys consider YouTube to be a social media site? I think I do, seen as you have your own account and can connect with others through it, I was just wondering what everyone else thought about it. Should I put it somewhere else? Caitlin OwlBag McGaff (discuss • contribs) 15:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is a social media site, but Im not sure if it is part of a public or a private space. I guess it depends on what kind of content do you publish so I dont know where is the best place for it...but definitely it's a social media site! LuciaGaston (discuss • contribs) 17:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I found a journal that makes the case for it being part of the public sphere, so i think I'll put it there. If anyone feels it should be somewhere different after I've posted it, you're welcome to move it. Caitlin OwlBag McGaff (discuss • contribs) 17:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Live Events - Imagined Communities
Hey I was going to start writing a bit in this section about the construction of imagined communities ( public) and construction of citizenship (private) online and explore how these arise within things like streaming and live events. Because it is such an open subject I was thinking about changing the name of the title if the concept slightly, just so there is more room to manoeuvre for other to add things in. Let me know what you guys think Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 10:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Laurasmajdorboom, changing the name of this title is probably a ‘wise’ thing to do, it will make it much easier for us to add to things in. Do you have anything in mind in regards to what the title should be? Bubblehatmark (discuss • contribs) 10:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Laura, yeah i think that sounds good! That way we have a bit more flexibility in what we can put under the title and what we can add to it! Lag94 (discuss • contribs) 10:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm a little bit stuck on what to name it but I was thinking how about we just kind of go for it, like I will add a bit of content tonight hopefully and maybe more will contribute and maybe that way a clear title will stand out? Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 11:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Social Media
Hey just added a bit to the private part of social media. If anyone wants to change/cut/edit feel free. Thanks Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 10:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC

Hey Laurasmajdorboom, I'm doing research for 'always on' and just wondering if you're planning on splitting up social media into sub catogaries eg twitter, facebook, IG and so on. I was thinking it might be useful as being 'always on' twitter is not the same as being 'always on' your mobile in general...if that makes any sense at all ha Samantha late (discuss • contribs)

Hey Samantha late, I think that would be a good idea to split it into sub categories --Scottxit (discuss • contribs) 19:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, added a little bit about Tumblr in the 'public social media' section, as I felt it was a relevant website in today's internet age. Kieran Glasses (discuss • contribs) 00:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

That's cool, Kieran. I added a few bits onto the end of the tumblr part :) Caitlin OwlBag McGaff (discuss • contribs) 14:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone else agree that Social Media could be moved up to one of the first three headings of our page? --Bailie Richards (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree Bailie, seen as Facebook and other social media platforms are mentioned before the 'social media' section itself. It would read better to have this section nearer the top and for the more specific info regarding Facebook etc to follow Xxlaurajane (discuss • contribs) 13:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm from the team doing the chapter "Digital Labour and Social Media" - we have a huuuuge social media section, so if there's anything you'd like to cherrypick and adapt to your section please feel free :) Danvevers (discuss • contribs) 11:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Uploading Images
Hey I was thinking that maybe we should add some pictures to some of the things we are writing? I realize that with a topic like web as public and private space that it doesn't necessarily sound logical to add pics. But maybe we could add like the Facebook logo when were talking about social media or something. Just think it will make it all look a little nicer if it's more than just a very long text? Let me know what you guys think! Lag94 (discuss • contribs) 11:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah go for it, we should include ‘logos’ and ‘pictures’. This will ‘encourage’ readers to read further instead of them just reading text after text after text which can be very boring to a certain extent. Bubblehatmark (discuss • contribs) 11:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I was thinking the same, having so much text can be super overwhelming. I was just looking at last years one and its a bit off putting when you don't have some kind of visual distraction. Good thinking ! Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 11:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys I found a tutorial here for uploading images to wiki, I used this already and it seems to work fine - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Uploading_images Warrenhardie (discuss • contribs) 19:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Images should be usually uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, which can be accessed using 'Upload File' in the Tools menu. If, however you have a non-free image(which will be deleted if it is uploaded to Commons) , you can either request any uploader/admin to upload the image or (if you upload many non free images) request for the uploader permission(Requests_for_permissions).

Adding an image is a little confusing without VisualEditor. If you're using wikimarkup mode, you can add a photo by clicking Embedded File(Add a file) - the icon is of a landscape picture(with a tree). Copy the link of the image after uploading. INnthe Caption column, you can add a title for the image(bottom). The Align option allows you to place the image in any of the 4 directions. The Format option allows you to choose how you want the image to be displayed(for example, thumbnail).

If you're using VisualEditor(which allows for real time editing), it is easy. Click Media, and search for any image within Wikibooks or Commons.

Have a question? Don't hesitate to reply. --Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 19:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, leaderboard :P  I totally agree, images make the read much easier. I am going to add a couple of relevant graphs and statistics! --Bailie Richards (discuss • contribs) 04:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, I found that a lot of images have already been uploaded to the commons page. Just search in the commons page the image you want and copy the thumbnail code and place it where you want it on the page you are editing. Here is the link for the commons page. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki And also, here is the link for the page that explains how to format a photo. (I found this very helpful) https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Help:Files --Courtney.hopp (discuss • contribs) 22:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, I added a bunch of images to different sections of the chapter. I think some of them might need captions, but some are pretty self-explanatory. If they're not necessary, feel free to take them down too! Warrenhardie (discuss • contribs) 01:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys I keep trying to upload images but instead of showing me the pic it only shows me the link to the pic in one of those picture boxes.. anyone know how to change this? Lag94 (discuss • contribs) 15:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Make sure that you have appended File: before the link to the photograph(otherwise it will treat it as a link itself). If you've already done so, can you describe the steps as to how you inserted the image?--Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm also having an issue with an image. I contacted the owner of the blog and he gave me permission to use it but it was taken down. Hope wikimedia commons will help me with this before tomorrow! Btellezmora (discuss • contribs) 10:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Try using the cached copy on Google or using Wayback Machine. If they do not allow so(they're quite strict), you can contact any uploader or admin to help you upload the image on Wikibooks.--Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 12:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Btellezmora, did you get your image problem sorted? I have tried uploading images to the wiki a number of times and it has been quite difficult, in the end I just used images that were already available at Wikimedia commons. (Here's a link for you to check - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) EDIT: Just noticed that someone else above already posted a link to wikimedia commons. Oops, oh well! Warrenhardie (discuss • contribs) 17:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Warren, not yet. I'm working on it. Just got a message saying that technically I don't have evidence of permission but I'll see what I can do. Thank you! It's not crucial really, but I just thought it might be helpful to have. Btellezmora (discuss • contribs) 17:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem, hope it works out. I added a number of pictures to the book, but some of the areas are still just floods of text. It seems like we have most of the theory finished at this point, maybe we should put in some more images to break up the walls of text? Warrenhardie (discuss • contribs) 17:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe! I just added one to my YouTube section using your advice! Thanks Btellezmora (discuss • contribs) 17:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I have been trying to add the Amazon logo to the section on Web as a commercial space in the section where it talks about e-commerce. Haven't been successful so if anyone could add it, that would be great. Mariaviola (discuss • contribs) 23:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Mariaviola, I added an Amazon logo that I found on Wikimedia Commons. Hope it helps.Btellezmora (discuss • contribs) 13:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Glossary
Been starting to think about compiling the glossary because it might be a bit much to do once we have tens of thousands of words to work our way through. I have to admit I'm a little bit confused by it, I had noticed that last year some chapters didn't have them but I think it would be wise for us to include it. Also I think the way this one here is laid out https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Help:Glossary would be the most user friendly. Thoughts? Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 11:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds like a good idea! how about we just make headings for all the letters in the alphabet under the glossary section and then when people add to the page or edit things with new words that need to be explained we can just add them as we go along. would be much easier than having to do it at the very end. Lag94 (discuss • contribs) 12:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I added the first term to the glossary, think it looks okay this way but let me know if that is what you were thinking off! Lag94 (discuss • contribs) 13:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, yeah I was thinking about pictures and possibly videos too as I have used a few when researching or maybe just the links to relevant videos we used that further explain what we mean? Accurate, substantiated ones of course. So if we are in agreement can we start that from now on or start adding some in,not too many obviously just where relevant? Take it we just reference them in the same way? Thanks JordanFerguson93 (discuss • contribs) 13:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

GLOSSARY text I was wondering about the glossary, how do we decide what qualifies to be there? Just any specific or technical terms that people might be unsure of? More importantly what is the best way to notify the reader in the text that the term has been explained in the glossary? e.g. a number or mark etc? JordanFerguson93 (discuss • contribs) 13:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I think just anything that is not immediately obvious could be explained there. But probably also words that are already explained in the text. Just so that at the end of this we basically have a dictionary of all the terms you might want to know instead of having to read through the text and searching for them. Not really sure. we could underline them or something? It would be nice if we could link them to the explanation so if you click the word it would take you down to the glossary and there would be the explanation. But I am not sure if that is even possible. Anyone have any ideas? Lag94 (discuss • contribs) 14:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Emma,yeah that's what I was thinking too,it would be handier and quicker for the reader to click on the word or term and it takes you straight to the definition. It would make it much more user friendly aswell. If no one has any ideas how to do that I'll ask in the reading room. JordanFerguson93 (discuss • contribs) 14:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Not really sure exactly what should and shouldn't go into the glossary but I've started with terms like Cyberbulling and Trolling. Not sure if they should be there, let me know what you guys think. Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 00:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, can someone find a way of using the Glossary wiki template? The style just now is very clunky, but I tried to use the wiki template and it hurt my head. Warrenhardie (discuss • contribs) 17:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm also quite confused by the glossary! --Scottxit (discuss • contribs) 19:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it necessary to even have the glossary until we're finished? Warrenhardie (discuss • contribs) 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little lost with the glossary...Do we have to add the important words that we have used in our sections? Is there any way to put it out of the index? It looks a little weird... LuciaGaston (discuss • contribs) 14:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of the glossary having a lot of the main concepts or words associated with the topic, whether or not the are already explained in the main body of text. I have added a few in myself, hope they are okay! TuesdayBobbleHat (discuss • contribs)

Formatting Glossary Hey guys. Took the liberty of reformatting the glossary. If you have a term to add, please add it in bold under the appropriate letter heading, don't add it as its own new heading. I also removed the text " " from before "Glossary" so that the [edit] option is now available. I couldn't easily link my headings to the glossary because I already had linked them to another Wikipedia page. I'm not sure that it's ultra necessary to link to the terms since we should really be defining them in each heading, anyways. I personally don't think we should bother linking, but it can't hurt I suppose!

If you want to link yours, you could try this template. "To link to a section in the same page you can use:  displayed text ," so it might look something like  Bitcoin  (this would only take you to the top of the B section. Use an anchor to link to the specific word). Go here for more info on linking. If that doesn't seem to work, look into "anchors," which are mentioned somewhere in the linking section. . Bailie Richards (discuss • contribs) 03:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE ADD WORDS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER Bailie Richards (discuss • contribs) 03:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Great work on the Glossary when I initially started it, it was a riot and I apologise but I'm glad someone has managed to clean it up and remove it from the contents page Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 21:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the Glossary, Bailie. It was very much appreciated. Bjohnstonn (discuss • contribs) 12:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking about adding the definition of "Viral" and taking out the one on "Viral Videos" because when something goes viral it doesn't necessarily have to be a video y'know? Just a thought. Bjohnstonn (discuss • contribs) 12:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Beth this is a great idea. I completely agree that not all things that are "viral" online are videos. One need not look any further than the white/gold, blue/black dress conundrum. Viral at it's finest - and NOT a video! Xxlaurajane (discuss • contribs) 13:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes exactly!! And like woah, lets not be bringing that black & blue dress debate here, lets keep this professional. Also, thanks I'll get that added the now. Bjohnstonn (discuss • contribs) 13:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, some of the definitions on the glossary haven't been referenced properly, or at all. I've cleaned up most of them, but just a reminder to reference your definitions. Warrenhardie (discuss • contribs) 18:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Deep Web
Hi guys, I thought that the concept of the 'deep web' seemed relevant to the overall chapter. This could possibly relate to a few of the other topics, so I didn't really know where to put it. I've just tacked it on at the end of the main page - if it's better suited as a subheading elsewhere, then feel free to relocate it, or let me know where you'd like it and I'll do it. Cheers. Kem00094 (discuss • contribs) 19:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey kem, I've added quite a bit to the Deep Web section and cleaned up the existing stuff. I figured we could relate the Deep Web to the topic closer by examining how the Deep Web exemplifies online anonymity and how the FBI crackdowns/raids show that there still are limits to this anonymity, even on Deep Web? Just an idea, let me know if you have a better one.Warrenhardie (discuss • contribs) 17:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, it's good idea giving 'deep web' a chapter of it's own. I was thinking about how it links to all the other headings and, while it does, I think it's one of the most important things to think about when talking about public and private - so it probably deserves a section to itself. It's not my area but have you thought about researching the lengths people will go to to use the dark net, and how difficult it really is to use it to it's full potential? I know a little about this. Just a suggestion but it may be relevant Samantha late (discuss • contribs) 13:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Samantha, yeah I've been adding a lot to the Deep Web and was thinking about writing stuff along the lines you're talking about. Deep Web is really interesting and makes a lot of sense in the terms of what the chapter is about. Hopefully everyone decides it's worthy of it's own chapter. haha. Warrenhardie (discuss • contribs) 13:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys, these suggestions sound good to me. I'll try and do a bit more research as well. Kem00094 (discuss • contribs) 18:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, I added a lot more stuff to the Deep Web section. I also decided to split the section in to two separate sections: Tor Anonymity and Deep Web. They are sort of linked, so if you decide that they would be better as a single section, then that's fine too. If you want to add more to the debate aspect re: online anonymity, that would be great. It was pretty hard to find pictures for the sections, so if you want to replace them, then go ahead! Good work guys Warrenhardie (discuss • contribs) 17:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Internet Security
Hey Guys, I was thinking of starting a section on Internet Security. Points covered in this could be Emails and Phishing, firewalls, malicious software and malware amongst other things. Just wondering if you all think this is an appropriate section to include? I'll go ahead and write it anyway and if anyone has any problems with it they are free to edit it how they see fit. Thanks. Danielball92 (discuss • contribs) 16:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I was wondering if we should merge this section with the Surveillance topic? Warrenhardie (discuss • contribs) 17:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Internet security could go well with the dark net, bitcoin, surveillance etc. Just a thought :) Samantha late (discuss • contribs) 12:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I added info and statistics relating to Ixquick's rising popularity due to Google's policy on keeping records of your search logs, so that could maybe help with the internet security portion? Kieran Glasses (discuss • contribs) 16:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Layout
Hey guys, I've noticed that the layout of the page is very clunky and there's loads of sections. I was wondering if we should discuss on here which sections to merge and how to clean up the layout a bit? Obviously it's early days, but it'd be a lot easier to edit and post if the layout was a bit cleaner. Thoughts? Warrenhardie (discuss • contribs) 19:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey,yeah I agree warrenhardie, its a bit all over the place at the moment and getting quite confusing and time consuming to find things, but just noticed that the layout of the book on this page is much better, much clearer, we should try and keep it like that. Maybe worthwhile looking at last years structure and layout to see what worked? JordanFerguson93 (discuss • contribs) 16:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Warrenhardie, I wouldn’t worry too much about the layout of our wikibook page at the moment, like you said it’s still “early days”, and we still have plenty of time to tweak and polish the page. I do agree with you in regards to our page structure. Thanks for pointing this out.Bubblehatmark (discuss • contribs) 09:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm supposed to be doing 'always on' and I was having the same problem. Stuff looks way too messy and I wanted to add different sub topics but the just wouldn't fit. I thought it would be best to start separating topics, but within the same category eg 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and so on. It's hard to explain but if you look at 'always on' you'll see what I mean :) Samantha late (discuss • contribs) 12:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the layout would definitely benefit from having lines separating the topics, as has been done here on the discussion page. Just from looking at other Wikipedia pages, this seems to be the norm, anyway. Kem00094 (discuss • contribs) 21:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Kem00094 I agree! Good shout. Lx07 (discuss • contribs) 21:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Reducing heading level of everything? Kem00094 and all: That seems very doable. What I would imagine is reducing the heading level of EVERY single heading and subheading, making every numbered heading (1. Always On Culture - 16. Bitcoin) into a SECTION, and thereby erasing the main section "Main Concepts." Are we prepared to do this? If so, who will? I don't mind to do it, if it is the general consensus? --Bailie Richards (discuss • contribs) 22:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC) (ALTERNATIVES?)

I think we should go for it! It'll make the whole chapter much easier to read and navigate. I also don't mind taking care of it Lx07 (discuss • contribs) 01:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This is definitely a good idea to clear it up a bit seen as we have a lot of parts that cross over into numerous subcategories. Xxlaurajane (discuss • contribs) 01:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It's so much easier to read and navigate now, awesome! Btellezmora (discuss • contribs) 10:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that we go from number 11 with anonymity to number 13 with Deep Web, just wondering if everything should be moved up by one number or something? Danielball92 (discuss • contribs) 11:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey DanielBall yeah I noticed that too so I have renumbered stuff and also moved a small section and merged it with Public Utility Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 11:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Laura, good job! Danielball92 (discuss • contribs) 12:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bailie, I don't mind helping out with the layout. I was thinking we should keep subheadings but change most of them into headings such as the Main Concepts heading, with the line underneath it. This is the way it is laid out on Wikipedia in general so for continuity I think it could work well. Also perhaps remove the numbers? So 1.-16. could be separate sections with their own heading and lines separating them all like the 'example' I've given. Let me know what you guys think. Thanks Davidones (discuss • contribs) 23:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jodie, the discussion on the layout is currently continuing in the 'Layout' discussions section :) Xxlaurajane (discuss • contribs) 02:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I definitely agree, this would make it look much better and make it easier to navigate. --PonyTailGregor (discuss • contribs) 12:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Davidones I changed the layout in the way you suggested, changing them into headings the way the main concepts heading was. I haven't deleted the numbers yet tho, does everyone agree the numbers should be removed? Danielball92 (discuss • contribs) 12:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Lets do it! It seems that those who have contributed to the layout discussion recently are in favor. Xxlaurajane (discuss • contribs) 13:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay I removed the numbers, it looks pretty good. what does everyone think? Danielball92 (discuss • contribs) 13:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks DanielBall look much cleaner and more consistent ! Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

yeah Danielball! I think the layout is great now! Lag94 (discuss • contribs) 16:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I think the layout is pretty good, I don't think we'll have to make any more major changes to it. Warrenhardie (discuss • contribs) 17:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys, is the contents table supposed to be centred like that? Wouldn't it look better to the left? Btellezmora (discuss • contribs) 18:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Btellezmora, the contents table is on the left when I look at it. Maybe it's your computer? Warrenhardie (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Haha really? My bad then! Btellezmora (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you upload the image, perhaps through tinypic/imgur so I and everyone else can see? It might just be my computer. haha. Warrenhardie (discuss • contribs) 18:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Haha sure. http://tinypic.com/r/2zjdn2f/8 that's what it looks like on my computer.

That is strange, for me the contents table is directly under the image. Perhaps it is just your computer, or is anyone else getting this too? Danielball92 (discuss • contribs) 19:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright, if it looks fine for everybody else that's cool! Thanks! Btellezmora (discuss • contribs) 19:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be just you Btellezmora, that's odd. what operating system and browser do you use ? Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 19:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

So how are we feeling about the layout? everyone happy? or do we need some more changes? Danielball92 (discuss • contribs) 09:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, thanks for taking my suggestion on board and yeah, I really like the layout. I think it is a definite improvement. Nice work! Davidones (discuss • contribs) 11:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Btellezmora, I checked on another computer and it had the same issue as you. I removed the picture, which was fairly unnecessary anyway, and that seems to have solved the problem. Warrenhardie (discuss • contribs) 13:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I thought it was just my mac but I opened the page on a computer at uni and it the toc still looked weird. Now that the picture has been removed it looks fine! Thanks Btellezmora (discuss • contribs) 13:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the layout looks good. Great work everyone! Lx07 (discuss • contribs) 16:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Style
Probably being a tad pedantic here, but I was thinking that we also ought to make sure that the Wikibook's style is consistent and - for the most part - reflects Wiki's house style. For example, avoiding the use of contractions (like 'can't', 'don't', etc) and personal pronouns like 'you and 'we' when writing an entry, which have been used here and there. Just an idea (which doesn't have to be taken on board, of course) for when we're applying the finishing touches. Cheers Kem00094 (discuss • contribs) 19:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree. Is there a page you can reference that goes over "Wikibook's style?" I think that contractions might be okay in most instances, but personal pronouns definitely stick out. I have also noticed that many people write things that seem more informal than factual, for instance, the "Terms and Conditions" section uses strong adjectives that I think give off the wrong tone. Maybe I will tackle editing a few sections tonight. Bailie Richards (discuss • contribs) 22:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bailie, there's a page here about style - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style. I realise it's for Wikipedia rather than Wikibooks, but I think it could be beneficial. In any case, it's really just a few things which are contradicting the factual, impersonal tone of the project. Kem00094 (discuss • contribs) 23:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, definitely! I'll try to spot some of these stylistic mistakes and correct them. On a similar note, I was thinking that for the sake of consistency (and clarity) we should put all the specific names, book titles etc. in italics and only use quotation marks for the actual quotes - what do you guys think? Lx07 (discuss • contribs) 01:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the italics idea! When submitting my own additions to the Wikibook, I have made good use of the 'new line' function to make sure the text shows when there's new paragraphs! It might be helpful to make sure that there are new lines being inserted when new paragraphs are needed because some of the sections appear to be needing it Xxlaurajane (discuss • contribs) 02:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys I can see someone has already been to work eliminating contractions throughout the chapter and the use of first person pronouns so I have just been continuing on with that also. Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 12:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys! I'm also trying to spot these things and change them in the book right now! I think it's a great idea if we try and keep it all in the same style. That will definitely make it a lot more readable! Lag94 (discuss • contribs) 17:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Bitcoin
Hi guys, I think we can add bitcoin as one of the sections too, as there isn't much information talking about the money transactions online. Bitcoin should be an interesting topic to look into, as it is different from the common e-money like credit or debit card, in a sense that it is not based on something 'real' but relies on coding and decoding to 'mine' money, and at the same time can be used to exchange real world goods and services, and as an investment tool. Feel free to comment and I will start to edit if you guys are ok with that! Austinechan (discuss • contribs) 19:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Austinechan, I think that discussing ‘Bitcoin’ is very important, after all it is an innovative payment network that makes bank transactions, it kinda links to the idea of ‘trust’ and ‘privacy’ online especially when transferring money. This topic in a way would help us explain our overall concept potentially developing further debates and discussions. Nice one mate! Bubblehatmark (discuss • contribs) 11:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Austinechan - good idea to start discussing bitcoin. This links in to Warrens topic about the 'dark net' really well, and how to stay anonymous online and why people feel the need to encrypt their transactions. I suppose you could write about if it really works, if its necessary and the future of bitcoin. After all, I don't think its that well known at the moment, but who knows about the future :) Samantha late (discuss • contribs) 17:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Guys, I've add the section, feel free to add more and comment on that! Austinechan (discuss • contribs) 04:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys, I've contributed a lil bit on the criticisms against Bitcoin, particularly in terms of its lack of regulation, feel free to add to it or change what I've written. Good job on startin the section, its definitely a topic worth discussing. Bjohnstonn (discuss • contribs) 03:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a fab addition to the Bitcoin section Bjohnstonn! It's made the Bitcoin entry much more balanced which is great! Thanks Xxlaurajane (discuss • contribs) 12:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey gang, I added a bit more to the criticisms section, fleshed it out with some references et cetera! Andrewpope912 (discuss • contribs) 16:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Good job, Andrewpope912, you've really made this section pop! Bjohnstonn (discuss • contribs) 16:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The Privacy Topic
Hey guys I was just doing some research on security and surveillance and all that online when I stumbled across this book: Free Culture - How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity, Lawrence Lessig It talks a lot about pirating and ownership of creativity and the rights to that and all that but mostly related to music and films. But in the privacy topic so far we're only talking about ownership of photographs so I was thinking maybe that is not extensive enough? Should we also be talking about ownership of music and films? Or maybe even just the ownership of 'creativity' in general and then make little links to photographs and music and films etc.? I'm not sure if this works out though so let me know! Lag94 (discuss • contribs) 21:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I was going to do a piece on the history of intelligence agencies across the globe and the various techniques that have been used to gather data electronically. Can't seem to find a good spot for it though, any suggestions? Seanmcl7 (discuss • contribs) 15:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sean - there's some existing info on various intelligence agencies and their methods posted under the 'Limitations of Online Anonymity' subsection which you could possibly expand on. Kem00094 (discuss • contribs) 17:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Sean yeah you could do that one, or if you feel it doesn't fit that well there, maybe try and see if it fits in with the surveillance section! Not sure what you're trying to write exactly so just see where you think it fits best. Lag94 (discuss • contribs) 20:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

PRIVACY-Lag Hey emma,yeah that sounds like a good idea to me then we will have a wider range of issues to look at which also covers the different types of media. Then at the end we should be able to summerise a general point about privacy and ownership of media online. The more examples we have the stronger the argument will be. You should look further into that text u found to see if it has enough releveant evidence and examples we can use to illustrate the point for our topic. I'm sure Greg mentioned Lessig in our lectures and readings so his book should be a good place to go. It also incorporates the actual media itself eg linking to pictures and music and films etc which will strengthen the entry itself and improve our wikibook overall, but that's just my opinion,feel free to jump in anyone :) Good work! JordanFerguson93 (discuss • contribs) 01:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys I just put some more about ownership in the privacy section in the book. I left the ownership of photographs bit untouched because I think it seems to fit around what else I wrote about ownership! please feel free to edit anything!

 OVERVIEW EDIT- Hey Guys, just been looking over the book and I think the overview would be done best at the end once the book is almost finished. (I don't mind helping out with it). We should probably all agree on what's to be included in it but I think it would work best at the very start of the book before the intro kind of acting as an abstract does in a report eg if you just read the overview you should be able to get a pretty full picture of the aim of the book and its main points. Just some thoughts :) thanks JordanFerguson93 (discuss • contribs) 21:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi I added a few paragraphs to the surveillance section and was wondering if my mentioning of cookies as a surveillance tool clashed with the prior detailing of cookies already on the page? Rymgooko (discuss • contribs) 14:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Deadline 6th March
Hey everyone, well the deadline for the wikibook project is this Friday (6th march), we have done a lot of work, so I think it’s best to start getting the structure and content organized. Any thoughts? Bubblehatmark (discuss • contribs) 12:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

yup, 100% agree I think we should maybe start to look at areas that maybe shouldn't have sections of their own as they belong to another more broader topic ( I already did thi s a little bit with Online Disinhibition). Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 14:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I've been scanning over the whole page making sure the layout is consistent. One section which is bugging me is "Impression Management". Is this meant to be in "6. Web as a Public Space for Business Creation and Promotion"? Personally I think it'd be better as a sub-heading for section 6. --PonyTailGregor (discuss • contribs) 13:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

One thing that kind of bothers me about the layout is the glossary, maybe once everything is done would we be able to get rid of letters that have nothing under them? I just feel it looks a bit messy. It's okay if people want to keep them though. Caitlin OwlBag McGaff (discuss • contribs) 13:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that some of the letter titles are different sizes and that some are bold and some aren't. We should probably go through them and make them all the same. Caitlin OwlBag McGaff (discuss • contribs) 14:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that the glossary needs some work! I also think maybe it would be a good idea to add some visuals to support the text. I have added a couple profiles of people but I think maybe a couple more images would make the page look a little more visually appealing! Just a thought! --Courtney.hopp (discuss • contribs) 18:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey hey, it's the deadline! Look at that! We rock! Great job everyone. We did some solid work. It's been real. It's been fun. It's been real fun................ BAM.--Bailie Richards (discuss • contribs) 15:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Well done everyone the page looks great! Danielball92 (discuss • contribs) 16:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys great job! The wikibook is looking great. Warrenhardie (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This is some great work ! Been great collaborating with you all Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 16:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I will always remember this day. Bjohnstonn (discuss • contribs) 16:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Digital Public Space
I was doing some browsing and research and came across the whole Digital Public Space project thing that the BBC is involved with and I thought it would be useful here. Its basically the idea to digitise and archive all cultural knowledge and heritage. It's quite interesting but it was published a few years ago so I've given an outline of information I would gather from then, I've had a bit of trouble trying to find more up to date stuff ( apart from the fact that BBC are having to justify their funding for the project ( but that wasn't a very reliable source) so I was hoping if someone else found some other information is would be good to add. let me know what you guys think Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 11:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Laura, I noticed the picture you included in your post hasn't shown up properly, I'm not sure how to fix this but I'll have a look at it and see. If anyone else knows how to then please go ahead and fix it. Could do with some images on here! Danielball92 (discuss • contribs) 13:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Laura, as a result of recent feedback from Greg, I have added a new section to the discussion below this one ('Public' - What does it mean?) and would like to know your thoughts regarding the ideas which I have posted. I feel that the information on Digital Public Space could be merged with or help to expand my ideas. Let me know what you think in the section below! Xxlaurajane (discuss • contribs) 00:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

'Public' - What does it mean?
Taking on board Greg's feedback, I've decided to add in this section to the discussion. Xxlaurajane (discuss • contribs) 23:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I have been following the updates regarding the new net neutrality regulations which were passed by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission last week, which got me thinking; by implicating these new regulations, is the internet and the flow of content more 'public'? In that case, 'public' relates to the accessibility of content online. Please leave your thoughts as I am hoping to expand and make this clearer so I can link it into our Wikibook better. Thanks! Xxlaurajane (discuss • contribs) 23:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you raise some good questions and we'd need to research how the new regulations have affected the web as a public space and how the web is more neutral now, as opposed to before the regulations were passed. Hope this suggestion helps! Davidones (discuss • contribs) 23:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be good to construct a new section which defines what is 'public' on the internet and shed a light on the gray areas. After thinking about these ideas more, I have realized that it could merge in with Laurasmajdorboom's post on Digital Public Space and help to expand her post into a bigger section which addresses what 'public' means on the internet. I shall leave a reply to her in that section of the discussion to see what she thinks. Xxlaurajane (discuss • contribs) 00:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I don't know much about the US regulations, but I think it's a very good approach to look at legal documents, since the more responsibilities an internet user bares, the more traceable and public he or she is in the virtual world. And because there would not be a clear definition or boundary to define what is public and what it not, I think we can just compare cases to show the extent instead of clearly categorizing things into two extremes, and of course we should mention the gray areas as Xxlaurajane said. Austinechan (discuss • contribs) 04:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys yeah I think its a good idea to look at the wider scope of information on the web. The reason I posted the bit about digital public space is because I feel there are ways of engaging with the ambitious projects in terms of the keys ideas which have been discussed in readings etc. Ofcourse it just a limited part of the whole area and I think your ideas about looking at regulations which have come into play affecting the 'public' space on the web. I'm not 100% sure on how to continue but i think there is alot to be added. Also if we look at US regulations we should make some mention or look to UK or any EU legislations. Might also be interesting to compare with say China or North Korea and look into what public space on the internet means there. Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 10:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Laurasmajdorboom, your section on Digital Public Space is really interesting, I think this topic does help us in many ways answer Greg’s question ‘What does Public mean’ but as you said there is still alot to add to it. I will try and do some research on this topic and hopefully add on to this section before Friday. Bubblehatmark (discuss • contribs)

Hey Laura, can you help me move the introduction back to the top (please), I don’t want to do it myself because I'm afraid that I might accidently delete the whole wikibook, besides you did move the intro before but I don’t know how it was moved back down again. ThanksBubblehatmark (discuss • contribs) 11:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback guys! The regulations which were passed in the U.S. were to do with stopping ISP's slowing down or blocking services which are provided by their competitors. As far as I'm aware, ISP's in the U.K. haven't being doing this - or at least not to the extent of which U.S. ISP's have and some articles claim that there 'is no need' for net neutrality regulations in the U.K. 'yet'. I'm going to write a little bit about it since it is very recent and hopefully we can find a good place for it and tie it into the content which we already have in our Wikibook! Xxlaurajane (discuss • contribs) 13:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Bubblehatmark, yup I will get it done. Do we want just the introduction or the overview also before the contents box ? Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 14:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Never mind I just realised we don't actually have an overview section any more ! okay all done let me know if the positioning is okay for everyone. Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 14:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Good idea to add this into the book, more emphasis is needed on the public aspect of the topic and some discussion surrounding the implications of being so public online. I found some interesting info from the FCC voting to classify the internet as a "public utility" which restricts broadband providers etc and approval of new net neutrality rules, where am I best to add in a bit about this? JordanFerguson93 (discuss • contribs) 14:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I think it is a really good idea! We need a section like that to improve our book and focus a little more on the public space. I have been doing some research and I have found the UK internet regulation. It is only a nine pages article, and we could add something about how the UK regulates the use of the internet. Not sure what you think about that, but if you like it, I can work on it and publish something before friday! Just let me know wjat you think!LuciaGaston (discuss • contribs) 17:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi LuciaGaston, thanks, I added it to the digital as public space bit under "internet as a public utility", not entirely sure where best to put it so feel free to move it or add a new title for it when you add your research too. That sounds good yeah, I mentioned a bit about EU rules in mine so it would be good to expand on it for the UK in particular :) JordanFerguson93 (discuss • contribs) 19:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys! For this section I think we will all need to be quite specific as to what we are wanting to do, to avoid people doing the same work/research. I'm thinking we should assign each other or ourselves a specific section on Public Space/regulations in this discussion, so that we know what everyone is doing. I am getting conscious of the deadline, and I know people are eager to contribute, but I do think we need to communicate better and share - to avoid time wasting. Let me know if you guys agree. Thanks and sorry if I come across as rude or as if I am targeting individuals, as this is not the case. Davidones (discuss • contribs) 23:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Internet as Public Utility?  Heya! I noticed that the "Internet as Public Utility" section is standing as a main section all by itself, along with "Main Concepts" and "References." Did you mean to make this a section, or a heading? If it is its own section, it will need much more content underneath... Lucia, do you mind adding one more (=) to it, so we don't have organization confusion? --Bailie Richards (discuss • contribs) 21:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I had an entire entry ready to post but seen as we've got some info already there, I'll be adding to it by including the latest net neutrality info regarding the EU. Xxlaurajane (discuss • contribs) 22:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, yeah I just put the stuff on net neutrality under the public web bit, wasn't sure where or how to put it and no one mentioned any idea so I just put it there,feel free to change where it is :) Yeah laurajane, I put in some stuff on where the EU is on these kinds of regulations so would be good to continue with that a bit but don't think we need too much on that as lucia is also adding some about the UK too. JordanFerguson93 (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I have included more details on the EU and what stage they are at with regards to net neutrality. Feel free to check it out. I read your section and it flows quite nicely into what I have put so I'm quite pleased :) Xxlaurajane (discuss • contribs) 23:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm just wondering whether Digital Public Space should be placed under the Public Utility heading now? I feel it doesn't have enough weight to stand on its own but I'm not sure how to tie it in without just plopping it into the text. Suggestions ? Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 10:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I have added something about UK and its proposal of the Internet as a Public Utility. I didn't use the article I shared here because it wasnt really related. Anyway, feel free to change anything you want. And I think Laurasmajdorboom is right, maybe we should include this section into Digital Public Space...LuciaGaston (discuss • contribs) 10:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

And Bailie, sorry Im not sure what do you mean with the (=) thing...Should I put one more in what I have added or in the whole section? LuciaGaston (discuss • contribs) 10:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Lucia, as in make it bold/a heading by adding the "=" sign. Btellezmora (discuss • contribs) 11:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and placed the Digital Public Space under the Public Utility section, like I said it didn't belong on its own. Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thats good, I think it flows better now, thanks Laurasmajdorboom. Bjohnstonn (discuss • contribs) 12:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking good everyone,good work! Just noticed that the book is sort of lacking relevant studies so I added in a bit on a study performed based on the use of Facebook by university students which I thought was very relevant for us and most importantly it covered there definitions of the web as a public/private and their findings. I added this under the Facebook section. Where to go forward from here then to finish off the book? Thanks JordanFerguson93 (discuss • contribs) 13:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Jordan, I just had a look at the bit you added. Sounds really interesting! Yeah I think at this point we have covered pretty much all the areas we originally planned on doing. Btellezmora (discuss • contribs) 18:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC) I added another theorist under the heading of devices and hope this is ok. Mariaviola (discuss • contribs) 09:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Btellezmora, thanks! Yeah I think so too, just did a little final editing but looks like everyone's pretty happy with it at this stage or this page would be hectic right now lol that's good, just thought we needed a few more studies and theorists to fill it out a bit and add some relevant evidence and support and now we do :). Were nearly done guys! Good work everyone! JordanFerguson93 (discuss • contribs) 10:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Everyone, I think this page is looking great now, great work everyone. However I will try and make a sub heading in the 'Web as a commercial Space' section and add a little more theory around the concept of E Commerce. I think I should also put a definition of e Commerce in the glossary. What do you think? Also thank you the saviour who sorted out my graphics problem with the Amazon logo. Mariaviola (discuss • contribs) 14:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

= Snoopers' Charter =

I know we are past the deadline for the Wikibooks but since working with my group prior to my presentation on Tuesday, I have decided that I want to talk about the Snoopers' Charter and therefore will be adding in some information on this tonight. Xxlaurajane (discuss • contribs) 14:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)