User talk:Carys the Hat

WikiAssignment1: Educational Project
My name is Carys and I am very passionate about Stirling University's student radio station, Air3. I go by the alias Carys the Hat online, which refers to a time in my life when I would wear a hat every day. That was a phase I left behind, but the name lives on, despite its redundancy, and it used most prominently on my radio show, Hat's My Jam!.

Hat's My Jam! is a phenomenon which began halfway through my first semester. As much as I wish I had totally come up with the name myself, it is derived from Relient K's song (featuring Owl City), That's My Jam, which was a b-side for a pizza hunt commercial which was released before their 2013 record, Collapsible Lung, which features notable songs such as 'PTL' and 'Don't Blink' (which is not a Doctor Who reference!).

My love of Relient K is something I am known for on radio, and I play them every week. Being a personality on radio has been an interesting experience. I am finding that it is most important to be myself, and to not worry about having some kind of gimmick. When I have seemed most like myself, and not pressured into being someone else, that is when I produce the best content on radio. I am currently on Air3 committee as the Head of Programming, but also my joyful personality has earned me the (un)official title, Head of Happiness.

One of the reasons I enjoy Air3 is because it gives me an opportunity to share my favourite music with a wide community of friends. I usually play songs around themes such as Songs from TV/film, Songs About Innimate Objects, Folk Music, and so on. This way, people can see different sides of my personality, as I have an interest in a great number of genres of music.

Air3 Radio has given me opportunities to meet people I wouldn't have known otherwise, some of whom are now my best friends. This is why it is the best society on campus. Carys the Hat (discuss • contribs) 13:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
You show a real enthusiasm for Air3 in your post, but your post would be enhanced by a link to the radio station or some of the other referencing you make. The post and your comments are slightly too colloquial in style (make sure not to use emoticons). While Wikibooks talk pages are less formal than an academic essay, bear in mind that you should still writing academic assignments and try not to be overly informal. Your responses are encouraging, but could critically engage with the initial posts rather than offer praise. How did the content influence your thinking?

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) 10:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments
Air3 Radio is a really great outlet for the media creatives of Stirling. There are many great and original shows and 'Hat's My Jam' was the first one I ever listened to! I think what makes it special is the unique music categories, and it also always felt cool to hear a shout out from Carys! --WiKirsten (discuss • contribs) 21:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It is fascinating being able to see that via Air 3 Radio you have learned to be yourself, and yourself only. It is much easier said than done so you should be proud of that achievement. I am open to listening to a whole array of music so after reading your discussion I am definitely going to listen to your show. I feel proud to be part of Stirling University where the individuality of people can be openly shared, especially through a platform such as radio. Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) 17:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, this work is really good and interesting :). The fact that you are able to be yourself when on radio is really good and shows the ways in which different kinds of media can impact us. The radio is a great way to portray who you really are as it allows us to speak freely about specific subjects or things in our life which are important. I also find your radio name really catchy :). Kyra Paterson (discuss • contribs) 13:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiAssignment2: Visibility and Online Footprint
Carys the Hat (or CarystheHat) is an online alias I have used for a few years since my fifth of sixth year of high school. On googling both of these names, the first result which is produced is a YouTube video from February 2013, the first YouTube video I made on my current channel. From these searches, my personal Twitter, Instagram and Mixcloud accounts were shown.

I am therefore fairly visible online: it is not difficult to find a link to my YouTube channel which has 60 videos without any privacy settings which anyone can find. However, the visibility of this channel is limited as I am no longer producing or marketing new content. Consequently most of my friends are unaware it exists.

On the other hand, I appear very visible on Facebook. I have over 700 friends who can see lots of information about me which I choose to share. I was surprised that my Facebook account was not a top result in my Google search, as the name I use is Carys TheHat Lunn. I feel as though I am more visible on Facebook because I am more active, although this does not seem true when it isn’t found immediately on Google due to privacy settings. There are different kinds of information which is available about me online. Over many years my Internet use has involved public forums, where I present a very different side of myself. I have always felt that on a forum style platform there is a certain level of anonymity as the other users do not know you in real life. I was able to share much more personal information about myself using forums, whereas people who are friends with me on Facebook would be unaware of my struggles with relationships, which I did not feel I could share.

From looking at my Instagram or Twitter, it is very easy to find generic information about my interests, including music, films, celebrity personalities, and people I find interesting from looking up who I follow. This information is freely available.

In some respects, I am able to control information about me. I have the ability to share anything I want to on social media. However, I cannot control others searching for information about me or redistributing it, for example, sharing my old videos. I can of course choose to present only what I want others to see on social media, which is the crux of the matter, as we attempt to appear real. Carys the Hat (discuss • contribs) 17:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Creating an online Alias is a pretty good idea. I was considering creating one for my Soundcloud and YouTube channel for essentially the same reasons. Partly because I view my contributions to such mediums as separate from my personal life and partly because I don't want some people viewing what I do on these platforms; not that I'm doing anything out of the ordinary I'd just prefer to keep some things private like you mentioned!

I also have around the same number of friends on Facebook, which I find quite staggering. I have no idea how I managed to accumulate over 700 friends throughout the years, considering I probably know about a quarter of them, and speak to roughly 20 of them. So yeah, everything's pretty much out in the open once you sign up for Facebook! something I find more and more unsettling the older I get! Kurtismccallie95 (discuss • contribs) 14:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments
I found it interesting to read that you are a different side of yourself in online, anonymous forums and that this generally is not the version you represent to your facebook friends. i can relate to this in a sense. i regularly use the annoymous app, yikyak, and regularly get a lot of upvotes or 'likes'. far more compared to my twitter or facebook accounts. its because i very seldom post on my twitter or facebook accounts. the reason for that is fear of being judged negatively. i was painfully shy growing up and thats how most of my facebook friends will still think of me even though that isnt quite the case. i feel like on facebook i have to follow this idea of myself for some reason even though i have changed over the years. for some, online visibility is negative as we feel tied to our real world self and for many of us, thats not the real 'us'. you concluded by mentioning how we try to appear real on facebook. this is so true. its actually quite sad in a way. we are probably at our most real online, when anonymous, but then when we go on our facebook accounts its more about constructing a certain view of ourselves for the gratification of others. MrRobot 321 (discuss • contribs) 11:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiExercise#3: Information Overload!
An article in the Harvard Business Review called Managing Yoursef, Conquering Digital Distraction in the has shown that “people who regularly juggle several streams of content do not pay attention, memorize, or manage their tasks as well as those who focus on one thing at a time.” (pg. 110) Information overload is becoming a great distraction in everyday life. I have found coping with the distractions of constant online connectivity and information very difficult at times.

If I am at home and must concentrate on a task where I need to use my computer, I will leave my phone on the other side of the room so I am not distracted by its alerts. I find that it is much easier to focus on one task at a time then multi-task social networking with doing work. I allow myself to check my phone only after I have worked for a set amount of time, as a reward.

When I am expected to find relevant information online to the task I am in the process of, I find it easiest to search for general facts and theories, and then to research them more in-depth, one at a time. This approach seems more productive than multi-tasking my reading, as I am less likely to miss something important when I research methodically.

Therefore, I attempt at all times to be efficient in accessing information online in how I approach each task, and I am always grateful for the abundance of resources which are available to me. Carys the Hat (discuss • contribs) 15:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments
I totally agree with you on taking a methodical approach to reading and looking up information, I have always been quite a slow thinker and struggle to multitask effectively. Your complaint about not being able to focus on work while dealing with social media is interesting, as Turkle's 'Always On' reading claimed that these days it was common for young, tech savvy people to multitask in that way. She argues that taking things on at a time actually appeared inefficient to the tech literate. Yet along with experiencing the same problem you mentioned myself, I know that it is a common issue with students that they are distracted by technology, particularly their phones. I wonder then if many people do simply deal with the distraction as part of their everyday life, as if there were no alternative, or whether Turkle feels people will get better at juggling work, social life and whatever else happens to pull at their attention online. -ReluctantCyborg (discuss • contribs) 14:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment! I never produce the best work when I am multi-tasking. Turkle's argument is interesting, I think the distraction of technology means that we can only focus for so long, it limits our attention span, so perhaps for some people doing more than one task at any one time works better for them? Carys the Hat (discuss • contribs) 17:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point, I had not thought of that. I know that it takes time for someone to properly focus on something after getting distracted, so perhaps jumping from one task to the other is a good compromise. It may not allow for the individual to concentrate to the same degree, but it could help them cope with the many demands they may have and eliminate the temptation of other distractions as they know they will soon change focus as part of their normal workflow. -ReluctantCyborg (discuss • contribs) 19:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I empathize with you and your struggle to concentrate! I just put my phone on silent but the urge to check it is still always there. I might try your trick of leaving it across the room! Really interesting read, and I liked your link toward the Harvard Business Review article. Good job √ --WiKirsten (discuss • contribs) 21:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Carys the Hat, this was a very interesting article to read. The link you provide and the quotation from it is something you would expect, however I would just have not thought about it. Juggling tasks, especially with all the information available, becomes very stressful. Your methodology of committing to one task at a time therefore is a very practical way to get important tasks done in an efficient way, and probably in less time too! Is this something you have been doing for a long time, or something recent?

As you have mentioned, when doing computer related tasks you put your phone aside, do you think this helps, as usually when I put my phone away, I adhere to my laptop to access the distractions I would on my phone? Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) 22:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I really do understand the whole battle of being distracted, whether it be distracted by items or objects around from the information I think that could be useful, but actually is not. Efficiency is always key when you work and trying to 'multi-task' in my head sounds like I'm getting more done in less time, when in reality I am getting less done and almost doubling the time it would take to complete certain tasks if I had focused on one. I guess we all can appreciate the accessibility we have to the content and technology that is around us, but as always, not all of it will be good for us. Robert Di Hero (discuss • contribs) 03:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
Thinking back reflectively to the collaborative process of the Wikibook project, it was very interesting to be a part of. My group, Open4Business, wrote on Open Source and Proprietary Technologies, which is a challenging topic to tackle due to the vast content we had to cover. The way we went about writing on this topic was not a straightforward process. We began by taking the overall themes from the lecture on Open Source and Proprietary networks, and splitting up the whole topic into themes and sections. MrRobot 321 from my group was instrumental in this task early on, and we helped to form a definite plan as to how we would approach the topic, by looking at the technologies separately and contrasting them.

Collectively, we definitely took our time getting started on the project as it seemed like a daunting task with a lot of information we had to process and write on. However, a couple of key people began to organise and break down the topic, and as they did so, our group began to pull together and choose sections to research and write about. Our group discussed our approach to the topic by sharing ideas on which topics to cover, but we collaborated widely with the rest of the groups who were writing on the same topic. We almost exclusively interacted with others in different groups on the Discussion page, although discussion within our group did take place, we did not meet face-to-face. I collaborated with ReluctantCyborg who wrote about how Linux became a success, while I tackled UNIX and GNU. I posted all of my findings on the Discussion page to ensure that anyone else who would find it helpful would be able to look at it. Our group had a few formatting problems with Wikibooks, but we all collaborated to solve these problems well as a team. I discovered how to add a thumb nail picture to our Wikibook page, as MrRobot 321 asked if anyone would be able to add some pictures to the Wikibook.

The Wikibooks project is a good example of participation in distributing and sharing content in our digital globalizing culture. Throughout our group’s work, we have shared external links to our sources where we gained our information. Simon Lindgren argues that this simple act of link sharing shows that whoever made the link “deems the content to be worthy of being watched, shared, and interesting, and evaluates which is the proper channel to do so.” Our section of the Wikibook really utilised links and information sharing to the best of our ability, particularly in the Discussion page as we collaborated in posting webpages we found useful. Lindgren also states that “clicking and linking, can also be seen as a form of technological reproduction.” By this Lindgren means that our engagement and participation online often revolves around reproducing the same content in many different contexts, so that a wider range of people have access to it, which gives it a higher value and meaning. The Wikibook embodies this quite well, as it is a book which brings together much research into all areas of the Internet, and this information, while not necessarily made more available, is immediately accessible to any readers.

Comments
It is really interesting to read an account that had tackled a different section of the wikibook from I. When you mentioned that you looked over the lecture with your group, was this done face to face or all over wikibooks and your discussion?

Even though we were in different groups it is nice to know that we both worked in a very similar manner. In out group, we also had a few key people who gave us a set structure etc. From that we could all then individually work on what we thought was suitable. Did you find that maybe because of the overload of information available, completing the wikibook was quite challenging? How did you know what information was relevant to your topic, and book chapter as a whole?

Lindgren's article is a very useful resource and a good way of explaining your point about "distributing and sharing content in our digital globalizing culture." good luck with everything CarystheHat :)  Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) 20:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Your mention of Lindgren and the way in which the project worked as a means of re-presenting existing research is significant as I feel the work we did can act as a case study for the way information can spread across the internet. I also feel your comment details how the wikibook can be of practical use in the future, as anyone on the course can potentially look to here to assist them on their essay. I identify with your comment on the way in which the group slowly became involve, partly because I was in your group and experienced it, but also because I wrote about that aspect of the project briefly in my reflective account. Personally, I am unsure if this is an issue that emerges in other online collaborative efforts, as typically only those who are willing to collaborate AND find something they actually want to participate in would find themselves in the position of having to work alongside people in such a format. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the issue. -ReluctantCyborg (discuss • contribs) 16:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I really like that you describe very detailed the process of the wikibook project, so if anyone who did not work on the project can see how it was to create a wikibook chapter. But for me it would have been more interesting to know about your personal impressions and experiences. Waht do you for example think of collective intelligence or the wisdom of crowds in this context? And was your online participation somehow different than it is usually e.g. do you consider yourself more as producer, consumer or even as a "Prosumer"? I for example became somehow a producer and participated much more than e.g. on social media platforms. Askoelsche (discuss • contribs) 09:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I like your point about the project operating as a means of elaborating on existing research. This is true, Wikipedia is essentially a resource which allows for knowledge to be expanded and manipulated in multiple ways and I believe it succeeds in doing so most of the time. It certainly provides a clear and coherent platform for collaboration. I think this is a good way to learn, primarily because information that is considered truthful will be regarded as the most credible, information that is not, however, can simply be removed. It's the notion that nothing is set in stone in the Wikipedia jungle that makes it so appealing to the average Wiki user. Your reference to Simon Lindgren I also found interesting, Clay Skirky reiterates a similar point about how any time spent on the internet; whether it's spent doing thorough research, working on projects, or making memes to share on Facebook for example, is time not wasted. He argues that the latter (time spent making memes) is not in fact a waste of time contrary to popular belief, because someone obviously deem's making internet meem's worthy of sharing and the observable fact that someone out there would be willing to invest time in doing so proves this. Kurtismccallie95 (discuss • contribs) 10:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
There's a sufficient level of engagement here, although it mostly occurred at the last minute rather than building up a collaborative knowledge base. Your wiki exercises are relatively short and could have engaged with more criticial inquiry and references (although the last exercise demonstrates some improvement).

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 limited critical engagement with set material, although most ideas and procedures insecurely grasped
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material limited, displaying a qualified familiarity with a minimally sufficient range of relevant materials
 * Argument and analysis:
 * poorly articulated and supported argument;
 * lack of evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * lack 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 independent critical ability limited, due to the fact that your grasp of the analytical issues and concepts, although generally reasonable, is somewhat insecure.

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content suggests minimally sufficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Acceptable engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Limited reflexivity and creativity, and a somewhat insecure management of discussion pages

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 14:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)