User talk:Chuyanlol

This is the user talk page for chuyanlol.

Wiki Exercise #1: Screen Time
I have been currently studying in Stirling and I realize there is so much to be explored. Yet this moment I would like to talk a bit about my birthplace. Hong Kong is a very nice place to me despite of the very unreasonable authority imposed in recent years.

I would like to talk about more about the Chinese New Year unrest associated with the crackdown of street food vendors in Mong Kok(one of the most busiest places in Hong Kong) which happened on 8 Feb mid-night. It started with the confrontation between street-environmental authority and the street hawkers, and then descended into the clash between people and the police. Protestors launched brick and bottle attacks. Fire is also reported to be burning along the streets of Mong Kok. Police fire shot into the air and point gun to protestors to so called control the riot. The night was ended with no peace. Protestors, journalists, police and some pass-by hurt.

What I want to make clear is, with poor leadership comes poor response. Hong Kong people have been tolerating unreasonable policy and social injustice. Government tends to consider the interest of the influential business sectors but not the grass root-level ones. And all the way we have been adopting peaceful platforms to deliver our vent. However, the government never bother to give a s*** to manage the opinions. How would Hong Kong be like in the near future? No one on the earth could tell. What we can foresee, it is not gonna be an easy one. Chuyanlol (discuss • contribs) 12:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Comment

 * the subject matter of this post is really very interesting. There is a lot you could have done to make the links to the module's concerns more explicit, in order to cite the relevant literature and get the discussion going (even to the extent where you can then use this material to inform your book project work!). I'm thinking here particularly about some of the module's later themes - Civic Web and so on.You could have also linked to sources through effective use of the markup.


 * A post of this standard roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor, although obviously at the low end of the grade band because you didn’t make the most of the mark up potential:
 * Good. Among other things, good entries will make a clear point in a clear way. They will relate concepts to original examples in a straightforward fashion. They will make effective use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons). They may also demonstrate a broader understanding of the module's themes and concerns, and are likely to show evidence of reading and thinking about the subject material. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.

RE: Comments on others’ work

 * These are on time and ok - however, they are a little on the short side and could do with development in terms of content, scope and reference to module themes. Remember that your comments on other people's work is weighted as heavily as your own post when it comes to grades. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment
I red about this in the news and I agree with your point that poor leadership creates unrest. In BBC's news article those issues were addressed with a little more detail. It mentioned that "Issues like parallel trading - where mainlanders come to Hong Kong to buy up large amounts of goods - have fuelled the unease" and "There have also been concerns that rights including freedom of assembly and free speech are under threat". Those are issues which will definitely cause further discussion, especially the later one. If Hong Kong will follow China's policy in freedom of speech, more than just people of Hong Kong will get nervous - other countries will react to that as well. Sirrinari (discuss • contribs) 13:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Online Footprint
Many years previously I have been in touch with internet. I had My facebook account set up early in 2009, at that time there were not as many social network sites as nowadays be. In recent years, it tends to be common to see news associated with crime or attacks made online, which is an issue I have been seldomly putting concern on. Since a few years ago me and my friends started to engage actively in social media, facebook, instagram, snapchat, music stations, various apps and you name it.

As far as I was acknowledged, we are able to control who we are disclosing our information to. For example in facebook, you can choose to hide any of your personal information from any friends or the public. However, You can't hide likes & comments activities from friends' news feed. However, depending on the privacy settings of the post you're liking and commenting on, not all of your friends are likely to see it. If however, a post you interact with has no privacy settings associated with it, all of your friends will be able to see it. From this, we can see privacy cannot be garranteed online, and certainly, not just in Facebook!

Noted that our visibility may be far from the way we perceived. Wherever you go, you create footstep, so does it in the digital world. Digital footprint is of ubiquitous especially internet is so common in the contemporary era. visiblity can be form of online or offline, to get to know more about the two catorized environment, visit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_footprint The fore one is about the footprint you create on online platforms with intention to share with people around you while the latter one pinpoint the footprint made by simply a click and which IP address and many other information can be analyzed after.

Hi there! Nice post, I like it. How many social media profiles do you currently hold? Are you equally active in all of them? Do you use them only for fun or are you trying to improve your business with them? Gvg00001 (discuss • contribs) 14:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Chuyanlol (discuss • contribs) 17:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment
Hi! I really enjoyed your post and the attention you brought to the two forms of digital footprints. I agree that most of the time people are only thinking about, or even aware of their active footprints. This is like your example of facebook privacy settings and people having the option of who to share their information with. However, upon closer inspection, one sees that everything they do online leaves a footprint. The passive visibility is what worries me the most. It was discussed in lecture, that even if you dont publish a post, the key strokes are recorded and leave a footprint. This brings up an interesting part of visibility because even if we think something is not visible, it still may be visible to some people.Hlat123 (discuss • contribs) 14:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload!
In an era of information explosion, information overload is a very perceivable phenomenon. We can know that easily from social media like Facebook and instagram, imagine you get back to the media after a few days being away from them, it probably takes you long time to have catch up with the news right from the day you are away. People, no matter scholars, government, critics or ordinary ones are too common to generate content online to express and to inform. In such an environment, it seems to be way more easy to get the information we want than in the past. However, I would like to talk a little bit about the drawback of information overload. When there is too much to consume online, despite those who are capable to select what they should read, I am afraid many people will fail and fall to a trap of: getting something easy and juicy to read. Taking a case in Hong Kong as an example, 100most is a Chinese weekly satirical magazine in Hong Kong. It also operates a website with videos which appeal to a lot of audiences. It utilises online media as a platform to express viewpoint of some hot topics in society. The reason why it becomes so hot among all other media platform is that the viewpoints are usually elaborated in short sentences(which are usually sarcastic) with derivative work. This is so understandable. However, there are argues like people will tend to take the issue less seriously and less willing to further get to know an all-round perspective of the issue.

But in my perspective, especially in such environment, people are in inch-reach distance to access any information, this actually facilitates delivery of idea in society, no matter political, educational or entertain-able. Schools and Institutions should shoulder the responsibility to teach our next generation not to access those information in a wrong way. For example, to encourage critical thinking, schools can manage to impose liberal studies in cross discipline and discuss as many issues as possible. Chuyanlol (discuss • contribs) 00:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
My participation into the Wikibook project: An internet of everything? is to get us working as both individual researchers and research teams on topics associated with technological and cultural determinism, which is only one of the chapters of the Wikibook project. The whole chapter was finished collaboratively by more than 20 participants in total.

The project had an approach to not only have knowledge generated in students, but also have them learned to collaborate with such a massive group of contributors online, as well as sharing of information concisely through the peer-reviewing the work of others. The Wikibook project involves the provision of a discussion page which allows all the participants come up with a framework on the topic before they put them onto the page allocated for all the information to be displayed. They could make use of the tagging function to reply particularly to any of the team members.

Very different from what we have been doing in other group discussion, the size of which is a lot larger. Team members had to discuss the content to be included on the discussion page, which was trackable and rather formal. People would tend to think more all-roundedly before they speak up. The Wikibook project was never easy. The division of 23 people into small groups demonstrates the similar situation. The 23 students were left ungrouped as the tutor give us the freedom to group up by ourselves. In the canvas system, almost all of us mentioned similarly "I have no group and would like to enter any of the groups. Who will be able to let me in?" It turned out to be no one manage to form a group and finally the tutor helped with most of the group distribution. From this we can see with little preference and guidance, group decision is hard to be made, let alone collaborative work.

The hardest thing of this project is to decide the whereabout to start. No leaders, no subtopics provided, information overload were the hindrances. More, in the light of large number of group member, it was very hard to keep the project proceed timely as expected. As students did not appear at the same time hinder each others' progress. It is especially true when come to this project which require significant communication. Luckily related branches of the topics raised by some people were soon adopted and thus the whole framework came out faster than I thought. Honestly I was sort of left behind due to started off the project a bit late when there was already a large amount of information to be followed. Thanks to some teammates, the framework and the distribution of work according to different small groups (a group of 5) were defined concisely and clearly to keep the progress running. The Comparatively to other projects but definitely an eye opening experience to learn about how people selflessly demonstrate cognition surplus and contribute to the communities for free.This make me realise why would people regarded Wikipedia a crazy idea in the very beginning.

In our small group of five, we didn't manage to meet face to face because people were busy with each others' work. Instead we had our discussion mostly on the discussion page. One of my groupmates happen to lives next to me and make things a lot easier when she and I could just shout out for questions. This also makes me realise (at certain extend) how vague and vulnerable online communication is. Once again a million thanks to all of the responsible and helpful teammate. We nailed it.

Chuyanlol (discuss • contribs) 10:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment
Chuyanlol (discuss • contribs) 13:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
You seem to be the main contributor to the section on Cultural determinism and the change of political arrangement, and also make some minor contribs to sections on Intertwining relationships. This are a little haphazardly written, and although supported through (admittedly, sources of questionable reliability) some online evidence, give little in the way of critical engagement with the subject matter, instead opting for fact-based description.

Wiki Exercises


 * 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.

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, although some ideas and procedures more securely grasped than others
 * evidence of independent reading of somewhat circumscribed range of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument featuring variable depth of understanding
 * satisfactory level of evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * satisfactory 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 variable independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

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

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 14:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)