User talk:Cloudon14

Hello, my name is Calum Loudon, this is my user discussion page, I will use this page as a tool to assist in my educational assignment. Please feel free to comment on this page. A website I enjoy using is JA606, which is a sports discussion website. It allows its users to click on links relating to specific sports, and teams within those sports. There you can find discussions, disagreements (usually many disagreements) and an online platform for users to get their views across which they could maybe struggle to do in real life. I enjoy using it as I am an avid football follower, and feel that when using this platform to discuss my opinions I can give out measured and thought out opinions and responses, than say sitting in a pub and saying the first thing that comes to mind to get your point out before your mate! I think that online forums can be good things for this reason, however I will admit that it is not the same as having a debate face to face, as this is also enjoyable. Also as always you get users who use the website just to specifically wind other users up, which takes away the positives of websites such as these. Being a passionate football fan I know I can definitely relate. But overall this is an enjoyable website to use and I would recommend to any other sports fans.

Comment: Useful Website
I would agree that this website is useful for any sports fan who is interested in getting involved in debate and discussion and as being a sports fan myself I would recommend this to others like me. I like your point that ideas can be brought to improve face to face debates while recognizing that this debate is enjoyable in itself. While looking at the site I also noticed the member section which had a feed link, which I'm assuming allows you to follow certain users or discussions, this would be a part I would have liked to know more detail about. In terms of relating this idea to the module, ideas around Pierre Levy's collective intelligence could be discussed, as the site allows user to put forward individual views towards a group discussion. While you did point out that sometimes people are just using the site to troll, so it may not be used to enrich or be part of a mutual recognition. Kieranmcm95 (discuss • contribs) 11:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
This post is overly general and does not have any links to relevant resources. You have also forgetten to sign your posts with 4 tildes, which you should do with all future assignments. We are looking for more critical engagement from your future exercises. For example, in this case you could have explored the role of anonymity and online identity in discussing sports online. Your comments are stronger as they engage with your colleagues' ideas, although, again, this would benefit from critical engagement based upon ideas discussed in the module.

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) 10:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki exercise 2- educational assignment
With online visibility and I tend to use social media accounts, but can not be the most active on these sights. For example I do constantly browse Facebook, yet I rarely post things myself. I tend to use Facebook to keep up with my friends, see photos I am tagged in, and add new friends. I do not pose an interest in many of the things I read, yet I still do it almost everyday. It seems the norm to me now to check and scroll through Facebook's endless news feed, some people that I have as 'friends' yet have never met. It has become a part of society almost, with many young people I feel would be in the same boat as me. This article I found online shows this http://uk.businessinsider.com/how-much-time-people-spend-on-facebook-per-day-2015-7?r=US&IR=T. That is from last year also, so it is only going to go up. Those that do interact more probably get more enjoyment out of it, but I feel that they will become even more addicted and find it as part of their everyday lives, when it is really not. Another social media account I own is a Snap chat account, which I do enjoy using I can admit. I enjoy using this as an online platform to express views, and have jokes with those that view my snaps. I also do enjoy watching others. However once again, I could most definitely do without it. Luckily I do not use any other social media accounts, as two is enough for me. I feel if I used more it could take over many more hours of my day, which I do not want. The thing is but it will only get worse, as more and more online platforms will be continually brought out, with newer and better features. Cloudon14 (discuss • contribs) 11:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment
It's interesting that you say that two platforms is plenty for you. Personally, I try and post on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat regularly. I feel pressurised into doing so. I feel like if I don't, I will lose followers due to my inactivity and people will lose interest in me. I think social media has become more of a way of branding yourself as opposed to socialising with others. Rossmurray26 (discuss • contribs) 02:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki exercise 3
There really is an endless supply of information in this day and age. From our socially 'always on' culture our generation is straw fed information from online videos, news articles, peoples journal's, even other people's views. Their own addiction to social technology goes hand in hand with everyone else's. It is just an endless whirlwind of users pseudo-communicating with each other information that they are not really taking in, within a proto language that represents laziness more than intelligence. There would not be a problem if this information was being taken in, yet the information just seems to be a constant outflow, with no real inflow. In the 1970's futurist Alvin Toffler came up with the term information overflow. Toffler used this term to describe how the improving speed at which information was being provided was going to end up causing us problems. It seems he has been proved right, however even himself would be shocked at the increasingly lazy techniques people are using to do it. With the click of one button, 'share' on Facebook a lot of people have probably just shared the same video providing information on something. Some of them probably will have an interest in this topic that they are sharing, yet most will just be sharing something they think could get them 'likes' or get them up the social network scale. It really is an endless cycle. I found this article, in the guardian by blogger Oliver Burkeman. He say's "Forty years after Alvin Toffler popularised the term "information overload", we might as well admit this: our efforts to fight it have failed. Unless you're willing to be radical – to give up the internet completely, say – the recommended cures don't work. Resolve to check your email twice daily, and you'll find many more messages waiting when you do. Go on an "information diet", and it's likely to end like any other diet: you'll succumb and consume the bad stuff, with extra guilt. So maybe we need to reframe things. The real problem isn't too much information: it's the feeling of being out of control. Why not focus, then, on finding ways to feel more in control – even if that's based, in part, on self-deception?" http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/nov/02/change-you-life-information-overload. I agree with all of this mostly, but I don't ever think there was an effort to fight this. The worrying thing about the information overload is that it will have to get worse before it can get better. A main problem created by this constant stream of information is procrastination. People are taking in pointless information instead of using pointless information. On the website, Lifehack, http://www.lifehack.org/articles/productivity/how-to-fight-information-overload.html, It gives these tips to help with information overload:- 1.Set your goals. 2.Decide whether you really need the information. 3.Consume only the minimal effective dose. 4.Don’t procrastinate by consuming too much information. These tips could help stop information overload, and minimise the spreading of information. But the root of the problem lies here; to stop help stop the spreading of information as much, you have to spread information. It really is an endless cycle. Cloudon14 (discuss • contribs) 11:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment
I really like this idea of the problem being scared of lacking control and your analogy of being on a diet. Furthermore, I think it is an endless cycle too and I agree very much on the fact that one should be more disciplined and focussed on what information they consume online, as one can only take in so much at a time and it can lead to major procrastination. However, I feel it is more to do with it being very impressionistic - if we were to only check our emails once or twice a day we would have far more pending emails to respond to and would take longer to reply to others. Our 'always on' culture stems from our innate human desire to be liked. 

Comment: Interesting post
Some really good points are made here especially the idea of us being ‘straw feed’ information, the lazy language we use to communicate and the sharing of info for an increase in social media status. I would add to this idea of our generation being straw feed information, that we accept this constant flow but never really question it and just continue to add to it ourselves. While you could argue that this information being instant brings both negatives and positives, like you said we get instant and pointless information but we are also able to receive important data instantly as well. Kieranmcm95 (discuss • contribs) 11:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise - Reflective Account
The production of the whole wiki book in its conclusion is an indicator of the positives aspects of the civic web. When everyone in the group project of the Access to Knowledge and Data in Everyday Life worked together, the objectives seemed clear, and this is when the work was easiest to do. This can relate to the concept Cognitive Surplus. This concept is an argument put forward by Clay Shirky that the actions of groups add up to much more, than those actions of aggregated individuals. Clay Shirky argues that the amounts of free time in modern democratic societies spent watching TV and consuming media, could be used better on civic collaboration and creative endeavor. So if everyone in the group had put their full attention into this project, and not took breaks or had other matters involving media to worry about, e.g. social media problems, the project could arguably have had more work put into it, if Shirky’s theory is to be correct. When I first started, I had not spoken to anyone in my group, and thought I could just join the webpage and start a topic easily. I soon realized it was not as easy as this however, as everyone was collaborating together and was able to find out what topics was best for them to work on as individuals, within their group, to contribute to the overall group of 26. I struggled to get a topic, and seemed a bit lost at which aspect to get involved in. However, after I spoke to members of my group and found a member of my group of which to work with, things became easier and became a collective effort. David Gauntlett argues that the civic web was ‘harnessing the collective abilities of the members of an online network, to make an especially powerful resource or service. Any collective activity which is enabled by people’s passions and becomes something greater than the sum of its parts.’ (2011: 7) This showed within the group project. The way in which members of the group started work on a topic was by discussing what aspect they felt they were able to collaborate best to, and what resources they had to do it with. Then after discussion, those that seemed best situated to work on a topic, it was agreed that they would do so. This is what happened with me, I started to message my group, found a topic we both agreed on and started to get to work on it, with my objectives now more clear. Jenkins theory of participatory democracy, in which that everyone can have their say in a forum for political engagement and debate because of factors such as access, freedom and engagement, could relate to this project. Some of the points of participatory democracy is that there is ‘some type of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most experienced is passed along to novices’. This could relate in the aspect that those that did not know as much about a specific topic, were helped by others who were dong that topic, and this allowed for an overall group contribution. Jenkins theory also states that ‘Where members believe that their contributions matter’ and ‘where members feel some degree of social connection with one another (at the least they care what other people think about what they have created)’. These factors definitely relate to this project. I personally, and I think that others did too based on the discussion page on the project, believed that all my contributions were mattering as they were getting put up on the main Wikipedia page, so I felt I was able to contribute to the overall final project. The final point by Jenkins I feel relates to this project more than any of the others. The whole project was based on socially connecting with one another to find out what topics to take, the best way to tackle a topic, and the overall best way to do the project. This definitely made everyone have a social connection to one another in many different ways.

Shirky, C. (2010). Gin, Television and Cognitive Surplus. In Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age. London: Penguin Press.

Cloudon14 (discuss • contribs) 15:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment
Hi Cloudon14, I agree with most ideas you have brought and feel you have related these well with concepts from the module. An important point you raise is that once discussion with groups began it made the aims of the project seem much clearer as it allowed everyone to get involved and organize who was doing what, rather than a free for all where people just take on any topic they please. You relate this well to Clay Shirky's thoughts on cognitive surplus in which a group collaborating is much more effective than that of an individual, while you also mentioned feeling part of the collaboration which I feel is key as it relates to the bigger idea of a collective effort. A point I would add is that even though you mentioned this social connection online was very important for discussions which I do agree, I feel a drawback of this was the inability to get real time responses. I think that any meet up with groups was key to allow a real discussion to take place in a face to face context and that this was another important part in developing the project Kieranmcm95 (discuss • contribs) 09:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
You have built up a volume of contributions, although these are clustered in a relatively short time period - your engagement would have benefited from accumulating contribs over a longer time period. Your exercises improve progressively in terms of their argument and critical engagement with core module themes, although they would benefit from clearer paragraphing. When writing online, remember that shorter paragraphs work better than lengthier prose that might work well in print. There are some good elements of understanding demonstrated through secondary reading, but you should pay greater attention to referencing, as some citations (e.g. Huff and Cooper) are incomplete and difficult to follow up.

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives a good brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a good range of concepts associated with your subject, and the effort to deliver critical definitions, drawing from relevant literature and scholarship, and your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is very much in evidence. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a good 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) 14:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)