User talk:CwazyChris

This is my wikibooks user discussion page, I will be exploring wikibooks and registering my experiences on this page. please feel free to discuss any ideas that you have with me and also to help my academic Wikibook project.

CwazyChris (discuss • contribs) 14:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC) 16/02/16

Wikibook Academic Task 1
In August of 2015, the popular MOBA (Multiplayer Online Battle Arena) ‘SMITE’ (www.smitegame.com) was released on Xbox One. One of the first MOBA’s to be released on a console, this was a big leap forward in console gaming, and production company Hi-Rez (https://www.hirezstudios.com/). This has shown me an entirely new side of gaming that I knew little about before – e-sports – turning gaming into a live event with commentators and analysis like traditional sports. This short post is concerned with the other worldly society that exists within the fanbase of these e-sports, where there is an entirely different culture. This culture can be seen by watching any official stream on http://www.twitch.tv/smitegame/profile where I first discovered the society. Fans will talk in the chat while pro games are played and it is incredible how different conversations can be in this online fan culture. Fans will refer to phrases or even just numbers – “667” and “Blame Adanus” being some that come up frequently. As well as this, special SMITE emoticons can also be used upon subscribing to the channel, which will be spammed in the chat by fans when certain events transpire in the stream. One could argue that this is an example of collective intelligence, with fans attempting to obtain “mutual recognition and enrichment of individuals” (Pierre Levy 1999). This can be seen by fans attempting to be recognised by peers and making newcomers immersed in this tradition. It is a wonder to see this collective mind at play, within seconds of an event happening on screen, the chat will be filled with the same comment from thousands of users. This type of internet culture can clearly be useful at bringing fans of something like e-sports together while they are thousands of miles apart. SMITE now has a pro league in Asia, North and South America, Europe and Australia, all of which convene to these streams to partake in a viewing of a sport. The point to be taken from all of this? A clear demonstration of how powerful an influence a game can have on fans, and how entire cultures can be formed around them and provide a positive output to video games. I welcome any comments on this matter and look forward to discussions.

CwazyChris (discuss • contribs) 18:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
This is a thoughtful discussion of e-sports and Twitch, that would benefit from a greater level of critical engagement. It's great that you have attempted to use Pierre Levy's concept of "collective intelligence" as part of your reflection, although this could be discussed more critically: Twitch chat is often full of spam rather than any recognized form of intelligence. Be careful with word choice (it's unclear what 'other worldy' means in the context of game subcultures). Your responses to your colleagues' work engages with their content and again offers a critical reflection based upon module concepts.

A post of this standard roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor: 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. Sprowberry (discuss • contribs) 10:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikibook Academic Task 2
In the digital age that we now live in, it is almost compulsory in social groups to have social media of at least one variety. An example of this being from Pew Research Center (2014), that found that 74% of all internet users used social networking sites, and 89% of 18-29 year olds using them as well. This widespread use of social media forces me to consider how present I am myself, in the online sphere.

As a member of Facebook, Twitter and Xbox Live (the three online platforms I use most) it could be said that I’m very visible online. I use Facebook at least once every waking hour, Xbox Live almost daily, and Twitter occasionally; usually if I’m looking for information on a topic. I take care in not posting anything that may come back to haunt me, but also exercise my right to post my opinions: usually in the form of a comedic comment or post.

Even though I do take care when posting on social media, with Facebook privacy settings, I can protect myself from being overly visible, by restricting my content only to friends whom I have accepted. On top of this, I can change my individual posts privacy settings to make sure my content is private to my friends. Due to not using twitter to post tweets myself, but rather just to see others tweets, I have never looked into privacy settings on that particular site, but am fairly sure that if I had need, there would be similar option to Facebook where I could limit who sees my tweets. Xbox Live is a bit of a different platform to social media. Each player is required to make a ‘gamertag’ which are unique and therefore real names are rarely used, making it difficult to find someone without knowing their gamertag. It is therefore necessary for social media users to be both visible and private simultaneously, so it is possible to be found, but only by those who you want to find you.

Daniel Trottier (2012) talks about this idea of publicity and privacy, and how Facebook can be seen as a “dwelling” and how people have to interact differently on social media with sites like Facebook being private yet public – e.g. you can comment on a friends post, but a friend of that friend may reply to you, despite you not having them as a friend.

Please post any questions or points of discussion, I look forward to it.

CwazyChris (discuss • contribs) 17:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

References:

Pew Research Center (2014) Social Networking Fact Sheet. Retreived from: http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/social-networking-fact-sheet/

Daniel Trottier (2012) Social Media as Surveillance: Rethinking Visibility in a Converging World Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing

I think it is interesting how communication works within xbox live culture. In the early days of the platform it was very easy, as you mention, to think of it as a simultaneously public and private sphere of communication. This was because you could both be visible online to hundreds of total strangers and also communicate privately with your closest friends behind the guise of your own gamertag. However since the release of the New Xbox Experience and the party system, I believe that xbox live has switched to an entirely private means of communication. Most people who are on the platform use this party system to exclusively communicate with real life friends and ignore the online part entirely. They still compete with people around the planet, but the communication is lost. If there is no communication the experience is precisely the same as playing with a party of A.I controlled robots.

Alan Chalmers (discuss • contribs) 11:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

In regards to both your own post and the comment above, I feel as if my online presence on Playstation Network (as opposed to Xbox Live) is quite large. Although the only friends that I have are ones that I know personally, I have found that it is very easy for other users to contact me regardless of whether we are friends. When playing games online, all other players in the same game have the ability to contact me afterwards. With constant news articles about "Swatting" and other similar crimes, would you say that the security of online games services is too weak, or are people simply not taking enough precautions to ensure that their privacy is protected and their online presence reduced? Banddcole (discuss • contribs) 11:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikibook Academic Task 3
Linking back to the start of my previous post, we are constantly on social media, but we are also constantly battered with information – a lot of the time through social media – even when we don’t ask for it. While this information can be an incredibly useful tool to have at our disposal, this constant overload of information can often be extremely distracting, even now as I type this my phone is incessantly buzzing and flashing a little green light to inform me of a notification. The question therefore arises as to how we can deal with this.

I believe the first and most effective way to do this is to be very selective in our consumption of information. It’s important to really focus on what we actually need or want to know, despite temptations of procrastination through ads and other bait, we must block out less relevant information when working on a task. We are thought to be exposed to around 362 ads a day, and we take note of 153 of these, so the selecting of relevant information and not succumbing to things such as these ads is extremely important with so much information available.

As well as being selective, it’s also useful to allocate time to certain tasks. When studying, for example, I find working for an hour or two, and then rewarding myself with a short break is an effective way of focusing on a task. During ‘studying time’ it is beneficial to switch off from distractions, ceasing any entertainment or leisure activities, and focus on the subject at hand. As Waschle et al. show, procrastination can be a “vicious circle” of postponing work and lowering goals. Time allocation can help us with this as we can allot time specifically for study, but also time to relax and browse what we wish to. However, it can be difficult to do this when faced with the reality of being ‘Always On’ as suggested in the Digital Media and Culture module at Stirling University by Greg Singh.

Danah Boyd suggests a similar time management by declaring “off time”. Building on her work, we can suggest that because we can no longer maintain this due to so many different distractions, the only way in which to organise one’s self is to consciously say that you will not engage with irrelevant information for a certain time.

CwazyChris (discuss • contribs) 20:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

This is an interesting outlook on information overload and I have come to find that a lot of ideas posed are similar to my views on this subject. '362 ads a day'! Wow, this statistic shocked me as I have never considered how much information is produced through advertisements. When watching television or browsing the internet I always try to ignore advertisements which makes it interesting when it is said we take note of 153 of them. This idea also enhances just how much information we consume in everyday life. With regards to your point on using the Internet as a reward or break from studies do you find that you can get sucked in resulting in you forgetting about your studies/work? For example I give myself a 20minute break from work...but scrolling through Instagram or Facebook can exceed this time resulting in me staying on the Internet for another hour. Kyra Paterson (discuss • contribs) 20:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment! The statistics stated are an approximation, and they take into account physical advertisements, internet based advertisements and also ads from radio and TV. It is an approximation however, so I expect as students we take in fewer than this amount, but still a substantial number! As to your question about getting "sucked in", I find this occasionally occurs, however my goals that I set stay the same, so the thought that I have a certain amount of work to get done to meet this goal usually persuades me to return to my work.

CwazyChris (discuss • contribs) 12:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The two most interesting aspects of this article for me were the genuinely shocking advertisement statistics and "vicious cycle of postponing work and lowering goals" you described. To take note of 153 ads a day seems excessive but this clearly points to our absorption of information subconsciously, which is an interesting topic in itself. This is a possible advantage of the internet in that if we bombard a page with information, even if we don't focus our attention on it, scrolling through will mean some will be subconsciously absorbed. If however this bombardment of information is primarily in the form of advertisement, this is clearly a disadvantage. We risk crossing an ethical line. Are these advertisements subliminal in nature? Should this be allowed?

You mentioned postponing work and lowering goals with reference to being "always on" but also mentioned 'leisure activities’. It made may think about how previous generations devoid of the internet would get distracted when writing an essay for example. Would they get less distracted or is it just human nature? Would they get just as equally distracted my alternative means such as leisure activities or watching television?

Finally I would like to thank you for your comment on my post regarding improved referencing. I have now looked at your formatting. This will help a lot with the Wikibooks project! MrRobot 321 (discuss • contribs) 03:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Your outlook on time management as an important factor in managing the continual influx of information, that we admittedly have to deal with on a daily basis as a consequence of the always on culture is very interesting. The impact of being constantly online in some respect is exhausting, and becomes more embedded in culture as the technology becomes more refined. Your extension of danah boyd’s idea of ‘off time’ is also very striking, as I find that I and many people I know do turn off devices to focus, sometimes for days at a time. The level of immersion in technology is so much that this complete disconnect from all of these devices becomes therapeutic. This conscious decision to remove from the digital experience as a respite is somewhat indicative that, to some at least, the use of technology is primarily as a tool, not a pleasure. You really raised some interesting ideas in this response, thanks! Blackflagdog (discuss • contribs) 11:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The solution you have to tackle this information overload is interesting.Referencing Danah Boyd and her 'off time' concept is a different yet relevant angle to take.One has to also consider what should be done during 'off-time.do we completely disengage with all technology or just simply remove ourselves from platforms that require our engagement?I do believe that 'off-time' can refresh and restart the mind, allowing us to return to our social media use with an awareness of self and a critical eye for the information we receive, However, I also believe that over time we resume our normal routine of over access and consumption of information.Pamela.nx (discuss • contribs) 11:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikibook Academic Task 4
As displayed on this discussion page, as well as my contributions to the ‘An Internet of Everything’ wikibook page, I have been involved in an extended academic project requiring me to facilitate wikibooks to portray my learning for the ‘Digital Media and Culture’ module at the University of Stirling. The wikibook project also involved me having to co-operate with classmates both on and offline, in an effort to effectively contribute to the ‘An Internet of Everything’ wikibook page. Obviously group work can have its problems and a medium that you haven’t used before can seem daunting to complete an assignment on. All of this prompted this final wikibooks post on my discussion page, which will be looking at the collaborative nature of the online wiki process and how my group and I tackled sharing this process offline.

To first start the wiki project we were to sort ourselves into groups from within our seminar groups of around twenty. Many immediately organising themselves within social circles, leaving around ten people for me to try and team up with, and with so many of these people not being available on social media, I was sorted randomly into a group. Now that I had a specific group, I tried contacting them, getting a reply from only two of the four other members. Not having contact with these members of the group proved very detrimental to our project, as it was impossible to organise and collaborate effectively without a fully participating team. Other groups seemed to have a similar problem, with many members either being entirely absent, not understanding how or what was required of them, or a total unawareness that the project was even taking place.

The point of the above is that it was difficult to communicate or collaborate in any way (offline or online) as many members of the group were not contributing. However, due to teaming up with other groups through wikibooks, collaboration was found to be possible by communication through this medium, sharing ideas for the project and discussing what each person would do and finalising this information in a clear and open format. Looking at James Surowiecki’s (2004) work, aspects of collective intelligence that are discussed by him can be seen at play through wikibooks: Diversity of opinion (many people had opposing views on how to go about Wikibook project) and specialist local knowledge (use of the reading room on wikibooks harnessed this) to name a few examples. Clay Shirky’s work in Cognitive Surplus (2010) could also apply as clearly in this scenario the actions of a group have added up to more than the combination of individual’s work, and because of this we have achieved an academic piece of writing instead of ‘wasting’ time with media consumption.

In conclusion, wikibook’s (in this project) was proposed to be used as a medium for: Sharing resources, ideas, links and feedback with classmates, maintaining engagement with the themes and concerns of the module. For the most part it did what was required and in my case actually helped save a failing group, but overall collaboration was slow, sometimes difficult to comprehend and unfortunately was poorly organised in the earlier stages. Potential can be seen here though, and aims were achieved because collaboration.

CwazyChris (discuss • contribs) 16:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Hey, after reading your reflection of the Wikibooks project I find it interesting and in some part comforting to find that others also had difficulty particularly with regards to communicating within our groups. I was also placed into a random group but was lucky enough to be included into a Facebook group chat before starting the project. This idea of collective intelligence is also interesting and leads on to a question I have regarding your whole chapter group. Did you find you collaborated more with your assigned group or with the whole chapter group? I only ask this as I found at the end of the project I felt as though I communicated more with everyone in the chapter rather than my assigned group. Also what was your overall thoughts on the collaborative nature of the project particularly with regards to people who may have waited until last minute to contribute? Kyra Paterson (discuss • contribs) 17:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Kyra, thanks for the comment. I found that in this project I definitely collaborated more with the whole chapter group rather than my assigned group, I'm unsure if some of my group members contributed anything. As for my thoughts on the collaborative nature and people who waited until the last minute, I found it difficult to contribute as much as I would've liked to without input from other group members. I believe some kind of check up sessions in the workshops would have made sure all group members were participating and understood the task.

CwazyChris (discuss • contribs) 13:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I feel the same way regarding working with the larger group as I found it could be a little intimidating at times also. I also have to agree with you about check up sessions or even having a better overall way of ensuring everyone is aware of what they are doing. The fact that we were left to our own devices to contribute on the whole project wasn't the best way to do it as there were many people who didn't contribute at all (or until last minute) making it more stressful for everyone else. Kyra Paterson (discuss • contribs) 17:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that your groups participation was sub-standard / lacking but am glad that you managed to effectively collaborate with the rest of your peers and produce a finished product. From my experience of the Wikibooks working in a group of 28, participation in topics did not seem to be a problem, obviously there were some "free-riders" who did not speak up till much later in the project but overall I found the whole experience rather crowded and cut-throat. Nevertheless, I realize the cut-throat nature of our discussion pages led to more topics, sub-topics and chapters being created feeding into the theory you mentioned of cognitive surplus. I find it interesting to look at the different experiences people had in the Wikibooks project from other groups, and how we all seem to manage - through different routes - to be able to apply the ideas of collective intelligence, cognitive surplus and the general motifs of the civic web to our finished works. I think the nature of Wikipedia / Wikibooks encourages these specific behaviors because of the format it takes - being able to edit others work and attempt to collaborate through the discussion pages, however successful that may have been. But I am also caused to wonder whether or not it is indeed human nature to freely contribute for the betterment of an overall project, in these terms I would say Wikibooks has been informative in relating theory and praxis as well as learning to work in a foreign environment with many people, would you agree? --DunkyNG (discuss • contribs) 02:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
There is evidence from your contributions that you have understood the importance of teamwork and collaboration as an important part of the assignment. Your contributions come from an extended period of time rather than leaving it til the last minute. Your wiki exercises also demonstrate a level of critical engagement although this can be very descriptive. Make sure to properly format references rather than leaving them as URLs.

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) 14:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)