User talk:AmyBevs

This is my Wikibooks user discussion page. I will be exploring Wikibooks as part of an educational assignment and registering my experiences on this page. Please feel free to add to this page to enhance my educational experience.

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 14:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: Educational Assignment
At the end of 2012 British journalist Benjamin Cook uploaded the first episode of Becoming YouTube - a series of YouTube videos which aimed to explore the world behind famous YouTubers and the entire YouTube community. By the time the last one was released in February 2014, he has successfully managed to open up a discussion on why people YouTube, and what impact this has had on the wider world since YouTube was first created in 2005.

Cook’s series – a ‘mockumentary’ featuring comedy skits and interviews with British YouTubers – was an exploration in using a media to explore the media itself. In creating this series Cook himself become a prominent YouTuber, and so could see the platform from both the side of the viewer and the creator. He encouraged the average user to become engaged – whether this was through comments, likes, or the now-defunct video response feature. He wanted to make the point that anyone could YouTube – that was the beauty of the platform. It was a truly open way of expressing yourself online.

In the series Cook explores several serious points through silly skits and YouTube in-jokes. He discusses what makes a YouTuber, what makes a viewer, and how these are combined to create the online community. He sees YouTube as a tool to create, no matter what your niche – it could be filmmaking, comedy, vlogging, or tutorials. However, he makes the point that only rarely does this result in online fame and success, and even then it can be hard to maintain an audience’s fickle attention.

What may be most fascinating thing about this is that this series appeals to both hardcore YouTube fans and complete outsiders. Fans are fascinated by what their idols really think of their platform, while newbies get an education in the inner workings of YouTube culture without having to trawl through hundreds or even thousands of videos. The series has opened up a whole world to people who may be ignorant of the influence that YouTube can have today, especially amongst young people.

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 18:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments for Wiki Exercise #1: Educational Assignment
Feel free to comment on my first Wikibooks educational exercise.

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 15:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That was a brilliant series, thank you for reminding me of it! It was the first thing that made me actually question the seemingly innocent content I was receiving from YouTube. It's interesting how much the platform has changed in the few years since the series was made, scandals and sudden fame has been prevalent in many YouTube personalities. I think a second season is in order! --WiKirsten (discuss • contribs) 21:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I found this a very interesting read and you seem to have the view that YouTube is a very positive thing. I think when YouTube was first created it was for people who felt they maybe had few friends or found it hard to socialise- which is obviously a positive. Its amazing how by posting one thing it can reach such a large audience, but due to the fact that people can comment on videos I think it has turned YouTube into a very negative place. For example, I read a few articles discussing a girl called Essena O'neil in which she had a massive following on Youtube and other social media but decided to reveal the "truth behind social media". She claimed that for every instagram or youtube video she posted she would edit them in a way to make her life seem perfect, which is think is very sad. So many young people are looking up to these "perfect" role models when in reality their life is not completely as it seems. I know lots of us can probably relate to this because when I put up an instagram its one I like and its one I think other people will like because realistically you aren't going to put up a photo which portrays you or your life badly. Here is the link to one of the articles i read on Essena O'neil if you want to check it out for yourself, I think you will find it interesting http://time.com/4096988/teen-instagram-star-essena-oneill-quitting-social-media/ --Amy Wardle (discuss • contribs) 16:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it's really interesting looking back on that series now, how it was the first of many to put YouTube under the spotlight, and as you say, on the platform itself. Since then I find it crazy how so many YouTubers have become household names, mainstream, when the platform once seemed as though it produced content for a niche audience of young people. The recent documentaries on the BBC about Vloggers and online gamers were very interesting if you haven't seen them, and gave an even more in depth look at this world and how it has changed even in the relatively short time since Becoming YouTube was made. In the same way, seeing numerous books written by YouTubers, interviews with them on news shows around the world, and the introduction of YouTube Red, is an interesting turn of events even for such a rapidly changing and expanding platform as YouTube now is, with its creators striving to keep up. Lilygeorgia96 (discuss • contribs) 20:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

This was very interesting, and there are a lot of very important questions that are brought up as well. I hadn’t heard of the series before, but I like the concept of exploring YouTube. I believe what it has become in many ways is quite complex in the way that it has been popularised as well. It has gone from people making videos with rather low quality webcams to people using professional equipment. YouTube has become something stuck between a workplace and somewhere people can upload videos. There’s a lot of glorification of people’s lives and younger teens and kids who watch vlogs and haul videos and see these people and naturally it does have some cultural effect. So it’s definitely an interesting topic to explore further.TrishEl (discuss • contribs) 11:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
This is an informative review of Becoming YouTube that clearly details what the channel and what you find interesting about it. There is a level of critical engagement with the features of YouTube, but this could be extended further through thinking through the way Cook engages with his audience. The exercise is sorely lacking any wiki markup beyond the title and signature. Remember to include links to relevant material and integrate any further formatting markup that might help to enhance your contributions. Your comments and engagements with your classmates are thoughtful and offer an extension of their initial discussion.

A post of this standard roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor: Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory entries may try to relate an idea from the module to an original example, but might not be very convincing. They may waste space on synopsis or description, rather than making a point. They may have spelling or grammatical errors and typos. They might not demonstrate more than a single quick pass at the assignment, informed only by lecture and/or cursory reading. They may suggest reading but not thinking (or indeed the reverse). The wiki markup formatting will need some work. Sprowberry (discuss • contribs) 10:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Online Footprint
The original purpose of social media was to connect people with friends and family, and to allow them to express themselves through posts, photographs and likes. However, what has become apparent today is that social media has unwritten rules that vary for each format. What is suitable for Snapchat could be completely unacceptable on Facebook – so people are portraying themselves slightly differently for each social media platform. This then raises questions about which version of a person is the ‘truest’ version – all of them, or perhaps none of them?

For me, and I think for most people, Facebook is the ‘official’ social network that people use to connect with friends and family, and for work and university. Perhaps it is this ‘official’ status that makes it one of the most boring social networks. Nowadays Facebook is rarely a platform for controversy or debate – apart from the occasional racist rant from one of your high school classmates, it is mainly filled with pictures of people’s dogs and engagement posts. I mainly use it to chat to others using Facebook messenger, as it’s free and easier than texting. Someone I post photographs and messages, but not as often as I used to. I try to keep my information private to those outside my Friends, but with Facebook constantly changing its privacy policy, this can prove difficult.

The only other social network I use is Twitter. I used to post tweets, but now I don’t bother – I’m one of those guilty people who uses Twitter purely to spy on other people’s posts. My account is private, as I don’t want people to hear my four-year-old ramblings, yet I don’t have the heart to delete them. I suppose I’m nostalgic for the time when Twitter was new and exciting, and a credible rival to Facebook. How times have changed.

So my online visibility is not as high as it could be. I think this is mainly because I don’t have a smartphone – if I did, the temptation would be too much to download every new app and constantly scroll through my timeline.

I think that generally people spread their identity across the wide spectrum of social networks that are available to them. This is both good and bad – people’s details are more difficult to track online, but then it is hard to pinpoint which social network shows the most accurate portrayal of someone. However, what is shared about us online can never be completely under our own control. Your friend could post a dodgy drunk photograph of you to Facebook for all to see, or your Twitter account may be hacked. You just have to try your hardest to keep all of these multiple social media plates spinning – each one showing a slightly different you – before they all go crashing to the ground.

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 19:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments for Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Online Footprint
Feel free to comment on my second Wikibooks educational exercise. AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 19:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Facebook’s status as the ‘official’ social network is really interesting. As a sort official channel its content is highly censored by its users and if I were to think which of my social media platforms is the most true to myself I would not say Facebook. This label, which I wholeheartedly agree with, brings with it a certain degree of posing and keeping up false appearances. I personally think that my Instagram and Twitter accounts, although rarely updated, are more true to the image I have of myself than my Facebook profile. Facebook is something most people will refer to first when they want to look someone up, so I guess we need to keep it as universal as possible in order to play simultaneously the role of friends, employees and colleagues under one account. --Riinamaria (discuss • contribs) 10:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It's an interesting point you make about not having a smartphone, and it's something I've experienced too. We've spoken quite a lot about always-on culture in the module so far, but mostly from the side of those who have mobile technologies in their pockets. For those of us who do not, always-on culture is a different experience. It still affects us, of course. I know it's not exactly related to online visibility, but something I've noticed is that, although I feel happier and more present in the world the less social media I use and the smaller my online footprint, the more cut off I feel from most other people my age. They - and I also noticed it of myself when I was still using social media - seem to take half their enjoyment of an event from documenting it and having other people feed back on it through social media. Things I was doing with smartphone-owning friends become social experiences between them and other people as well; for example, one friend would take and post a series of photos while we were out, and what was for me about having a nice time with her was for her only half about that, the other half being telling her other friends that she was doing something. Having only half of someone's attention can be quite isolating in its own way. I wonder if you have experienced anything similar? Or if you've actually had a completely different experience of not using a smartphone? --EmLouBrough (discuss • contribs) 20:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment #2 for AmyBevs Celebrity Culture
I was told I had to GET a Twitter at college even though I thought it looked like an eyesore with all the @s and hashtags. I mostly follow celebrity Twitter accounts and I like looking at former child-actor accounts to see what they're up to now as most celebrities seem to be vocal via Twitter. I wish Twitter was around when I was growing up at school as I would wonder what my favourite celebrity was doing that very moment. I find it interesting that 15 years ago if a person literally followed a celebrity around town all day or constantly sending them letters they may have received a stalking injunction. Now electronically it is the norm. Celebrities are willing to share this information. You can see inside their homes, what kind of pets they have, who their other halves are if not publically known. Would you agree that doing these things electronically there is a degree of safety in celebrity social media sharing?HayleyJo87 (discuss • contribs) 11:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello - thank you for your comment! I believe that social media gives you a 'controlled' way of stalking your favourite celebrities - they (or their management) very much control what they put out, yet audiences still believe that they are getting an exclusive insight into their favourite celebrities' lives. That being said, sometimes the information that is available about celebrities on the internet does infringe on their lives - an example that springs to mind is the case of YouTuber Zoella and her boyfriend Alfie's Brighton house being bombarded by fans after their address was released online.

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 11:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Introduction
The abundance of information that the internet holds is both a blessing and a curse. With more and more unregulated information being uploaded every day, it can be difficult to wade through the masses of sometimes outdated information to find what is relevant. I think that your technique on finding what you are looking for will depend on the task that you are undertaking:

Casual Information (Social Media)
Most people have at least one form of social media, and the more you have, the more time you will spend scrolling through the user-generated content that is posted onto them. Nobody really has the time or brain capacity to absorb every detail that gets uploaded, so people have developed techniques to limit the amount of information that they have to scroll through. Perhaps they could use a feature like Facebook’s ‘unfollow’ option, where a person still remains ‘friends’ but their posts no longer show up on their timeline. Alternatively, people often quickly scan their news feed, and then later return to those posts that they found interesting and would like to spend more time on.

Formal Information (Research)
When doing research for something like a project or an essay, finding the relevant information can sometimes be a bit of a challenge. If you have to stray further than the first ‘O’ of Google, then chances are you are in trouble. No one has the time to look through pages and pages of internet results on the topic you are researching (it can run to millions of results!) so if what you’re looking for is not on the first page then you have to be a bit smarter about your research. People often rely on trusted, official websites to find useful information – since anything can be uploaded to the internet, you need to be careful that what you are using is actually true and accurate.

Conclusion
Therefore a person’s techniques for finding the information that they are looking for will vary widely from task to task. In cases where it is just a casual piece of information is required, less care is needed. However, when you are relying upon the accuracy of your information, you need to be sure that what you find comes from a reliable source.

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 20:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments for Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload!
Feel free to comment on my third Wikibooks educational exercise.

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 20:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
The Wikibook Project in this module proved to be both a challenging and a rewarding task. It was unlike any other university assignment I had done previously, as it involved many different elements simultaneously, such as group work, online collaboration and website formatting. What was clear was that communication – both online and offline - was fundamental to the successful completion of this task.

Despite its basis online, the initial discussion of this task and how we were going to complete it had to done in person. During the course of the Wikibook Project our group of five met twice: first to discuss the outline of our section, and secondly to allocate sections between ourselves. These real-life discussions were essential in making decisions and deciding on what needed to be done. Although online communication has it benefits, it is unlikely to be happening in real time, so trying to make decisions in groups could prove to be more difficult.

Once our group has organised itself and decided what it was doing, we then moved on to using mainly online communication to keep our side of the project going as the deadline approached. The talk page of our chapter Technological and Cultural Determinism proved to be the main communication platform for discussion between the different groups and their members. The fact that we had twenty-three students working on our chapter made the task seem much less daunting, as everyone’s contributions would add up to a substantial piece of work. However, what soon became clear was that some people were going to contribute a lot more than others, with some people only joining the discussion a couple of days before the project was due. This meant that when they joined in they were unsure of what was happening, and they also had no say in the initial discussion and decision-making process. With only a few people making key decisions for the rest of the group, it was not very democratic. Yet it was essential for some people to take over in order to get the work done.

Despite these drawbacks, the discussion on the talk page also turned out to be an effective method of communication. With everyone able to see everyone else’s messages, nobody missed out on essential information about the project. People were very much willing to help each other – even people working on other chapters – and so everyone benefitted from advice on formatting and techniques. With this help from our peers, it become clear that everyone wanted the project to succeed – it was a collaborate effort, not a competition. As a team, we worked well together to create a valuable resource that others will then be able to use.

In order to link this to the idea of the Civic Web, it is useful to look at the work of David Gauntlett. He described Web 2.0 as being “greater than the sum of its parts”, as a group of individuals come together to create something using their combined knowledge that is greater than what any of them could have done on their own. With the vast amount of resources and knowledge available on the internet, it is surprising how much of it comes from people working together in their free time to create something that others will use. But since the creation of the internet, people have been willing to work together, help others, and provide information for the greater good.

Another theorist, Alvin Toffler, coined the term ‘prosumer’ to describe the transformation of the consumer into the producer. This is evident through online culture today. Through websites such as social media anyone can create, and content is now of a higher quality than it ever was before. Everyone can contribute and add worth to the internet.

While the Wikibook Project clearly had its drawbacks and difficulties, we were successful in creating an effective resource. When it boils down to it, we were doing this because we were instructed to do so for an assignment – but it inspired us to look at the possibilities of using our own free time to create something great. It was truly a piece of user-generated content – a collaboration of a lot of people to create something that they could not have done individually.

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 20:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments for Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
Feel free to comment on my fourth and final Wikibooks educational exercise.

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 20:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Just like you say I definitely believe that it was fundamental to hold the meetings in person for this project to be done. Wikipedia is not an essential forum for a real time conversation; it felt more like it was a good place to put ideas and plans that didn’t need immediate responses. If you want to get a quick reply from someone or make sure the organising aspect of the project works I found the face-to-face meetings and Facebook as a point of contact to be more useful. I think that one of the reasons some people struggled a lot to make posts on the Wikibooks Talk page of the chapter was because it was an unfamiliar platform. Then of course there is the amount of procrastination that will always be the case regardless of what assignment it is, but especially if it is something that’s more or less completely new to people. Mentioning how working on the chapter with several groups made it seem less daunting I do agree with that but I feel at the same time as if it did make it a bit more complicated. It was at times difficult to come into contact with all of the groups and that meant there wasn’t always clear on who would be working on what section and in some ways that ended up causing some stress. I find it interesting how you tie in our work on this project with Toffler’s ideas surrounding the “prosumer”, it’s definitely clear how to me at least and I can see how this project can be related to it.TrishEl (discuss • contribs) 00:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said in your reflection. The in person meetings were pivotal to the success of this project. There are certain things that can only be clarified and explained thoroughly face to face. However, I think that the combination of communication in person and also on the wiki books page offered an optimal combination for sharing information. Communication on the talk page was nice because it was there for everyone to see and reference later. Like you said, other people could chime in and offer help, even if they were from other groups. I found that this really did foster a collaborative atmosphere rather than a competitive one.

I also thought that the page we were able to make with so many people participating was quite substantial. It did make it less daunting that everyone only needed to play a small role in order to make the page so complete and detailed. One issue I think that does come up when so many people contribute is focus and style. Many different people write with different styles and this can lead to many inconstancies throughout the project when reading through. So many voices make the page seem a little less uniform and not flow as well. I think that this problem is inevitable and if this were more of a professional project, rather than a short-term class project, that there could be some guidelines set up. Perhaps in other situations, some people could research and fewer people write so that there are fewer voices in the writing.

Anyways, it was nice working with you on this project. Thank you for your contributions. Hlat123 (discuss • contribs) 14:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @AmyBevs I hope you don't mind me commenting again but I am always assured of a well balanced argument in your posts. I actually wanted to pick up on something that @.TrishEl said as well when they mentioned I think that one of the reasons some people struggled a lot to make posts on the Wikibooks Talk page of the chapter was because it was an unfamiliar platform. This was definitely the case for me. Like you mentioned @AmyBevs, I had also not encountered a university project such as this and I was wondering if you would agree that would having a civic engagement from an early age would impact how one handled the project? I found it interesting while reading the Shakuntala Banaji, David Buckingham survey about The civic web: young people, the Internet and civic participation ” that out of their 3,307 respondents aged between 15 and 25 '‘ninety percent […] said they used the internet most frequently at home […]. On average […] respondents said they had already been using the internet seven years prior to 2009, and with few exceptions, most maintained they felt confident in doing so'. As a mature student I have approximately 8-10 years on my peers where wifi was not as easily available as today (dial up and internet cafes), I had to go to the library to use the internet as I didn't have a computer at home and didn't get one (a laptop) until 2007 after I graduated from my first college course. I could be considered a part of the Digital Divide referred to in the Banaji and Buckingham survey. Missing out on being computer as technology literate as a teenager and only achieving the necessities as an adult, meant that I did not have much in the way of experience for an online civic collaboration until the WIKI Books project. I started out with the intention of being really engaged and writing like 20 posts but as I struggled with the Mark-Up often taking an entire day to realise I had missed a tiny bit of code in the end I only got about three posts written and I didn't see the message boards for the individual chapters until late on. The Reading Room were helpful but their responses weren't immediate so one could go for hours before them being in touch. So my question remains - do you think that if I had grown up with a better access to the internet, and using this to build up my computer literacy skills would I have perhaps found it easier and be able to make better contributions? HayleyJo87 (discuss • contribs) 07:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

TrishEl and Hlat123 - it was great working with you on the project too. We were lucky to have such a great team!

HayleyJo87 - I find your point about civic engagement from an early age very interesting. As a nineteen-year-old who has grown up using the internet and new technology, both at home and in school, I do find that I generally have a better understanding of how it all works than those who are older than me. Some things that seem obvious and simple to me are found to be difficult by those who have not grown up with this technology. However, saying that, the wikibooks did present a new challenge to even the most tech-savvy of us as it used specific codes and formatting which I had not come across before. In other websites, such as social media, they pride themselves on their ease of use in order to get as many people engaged as possible. However, on Wikibooks the general formatting is a bit more complex, so it took a bit of time to gain a grasp of it. To answer your question, I believe that even those with early good computer literacy skills found this project a challenge because it was unlike anything most of us had used before. To some extent those who had grown up with the internet may have found it easier, but in general I think that almost everyone found it harder than they expected.

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 16:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
It's clear from your contributions that you were the catalyst for getting your group to start producing content, and this is matched with a sustained engagement throughout the course of the exercises and chapter. Your exercises improved in the level of critical engagement progressively and you grappled with some important theorists in the chapter and to demonstrate a clear understanding of the difference between technological and cultural determinism.

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives a satisfactory brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a fair range of concepts associated with your subject, and an effort to deliver critical definitions. There is evidence that you draw from relevant literature and scholarship, however your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is slightly lost, perhaps due to a variable depth of understanding the subject matter or over reliance on rote learning. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a somewhat circumscribed range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, clearly grounded on close familiarity with concepts and ideas encountered on the module
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material through evidence of close familiarity with a wide range of evidence
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument featuring appreciable depth of understanding
 * good level of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * good level of evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections in discussion);
 * evidence of appreciable independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content to an appreciable standard (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Good engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of discussion pages using deployment of judgement relating to key issues, concepts and procedures

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 14:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)