User talk:D man choo

This is my user discussion page. I am using this discussion page as a tool to complete some educational assignments for my Digital Media course. This page will be updated every now and again; feel free to comment on it!

Binge-Watching
On the 16th of February 2016, two very important things happened. The first was that the first episode of Better Call Saul season 2 was made available on Netflix, and the second was that BBC Three aired on TV for the last time before the entire channel moved completely online.

I was extremely irritated that Netflix had not released all episodes for Better Call Saul at once, in line with the accessibility of all their other TV shows. I wanted them all, and I wanted them all now. However this idea got me thinking - as the form of digital entertainment changes (from television channels with strict schedules showing weekly episodes of shows to the mass release online of modern shows and the popularity of easily accessible online content) we consume this media in very different ways than we did in years gone by when digital technology wasn't as advanced. BBC Three have changed their entire format and strategy just to be synchronized with the modern ways of consuming media. The changes in technology that have enabled data to be spread further and quicker, with easier accessibility, have changed how we consume entertainment, which in my opinion is an example of technological determinism.

In my opinion this technological determinism has also given rise to the 'Always On' culture theory. I could watch Better Call Saul on my laptop, on my phone, or on my TV. I got a notification from Netflix on my phone the moment the show's first episode became available: an example of how we are constantly tethered to technology, which in turn blurs the line between the online world and the 'real' world. Everything is constantly available to us, and we are in a permanent state of connectivity. Our modern culture of binge-watching shows (needing everything immediately at the tips of out fingers) and requiring instant access to all content (like BBC Three now provides with its shows) is an example of our always-on culture.

D man choo (discuss • contribs) 02:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Great Analysis and Application of Theory
This is a great application of theory from the module: applying technological determinism to modern, everyday life and implementing the familiar idea that through technological advances nowadays we now consume media differently as it is more accessible to us online. I love how you have brought attention to this concept by bringing in the recent news that BBC Three have now gone online and no longer are on TV anymore due to the new ways in which we collectively tend to view media. Also, your example with reference to 'always-on culture' is interesting in relation to technological determinism - how due to advances in mobile devices, tablets, laptops and even desktops, they can all interlink and thus it is difficult to miss any episodes of your favourite show (e.g. if you have an iPhone and an iMac for instance, these two are connected through the Cloud and in other various ways). One can even use their iPhone as a remote control for their iMac in some ways such as changing the music track or pausing a movie - just to reiterate your point on how everything is interconnected and how we are bound in a sense to technology with everything available to us immediately and effortlessly. We no longer have to view shows at specific times anymore as you have pointed out, and can simply be notified of new episode releases through our Netflix account on one of our various technological devices which we're most likely using since we are generally glued to them at least during some point of the day.

This a great point to bring up. Binge watching programmes has became the social norm in recent years with Netflix, Amazon Prime and other online streaming sites becoming increasingly popular. They can be watched anywhere, anytime and on pretty much anything if their is an internet available. This really highlights the 'Always On' culture this current generation has. also it shows that we maybe moving away from watching an episode a week of your favorite show on TV and more towards Watching all the episodes of your favorite show online in one binge watch. Keep up the good work. RyanMurray96 (discuss • contribs) 11:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment: good use of theory
I can relate to your thoughts here. I also can not stop myself from watching more than one episode when I am enjoying a TV show. I think there are many others like this, and i think netflix and similar big streaming companies also know this. I think they use this knowledge to keep us coming back, as you said with notifications when the next episode is available, and by the clever recommendations they give you to similar TV shows to watch, and keep us as consumers coming back. They are definitely aware of the always on culture we are living in, and they are definitely using it to there advantage! As the user above me also said, there are so many ways and devices now to stream these websites and apps onto also, there is no escape.If you compare this to years ago before the rise of technological culture, people had to wait a week for there TV show, which would be shown on TV and that would be that. Now there are so many different ways to watch popular TV shows, and with more companies realizing the advantages of this always on culture, this does not look like changing any time soon. Cloudon14 (discuss • contribs) 11:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
This is a thoughtful reflection that engages with the theme of technological determinism. You might have taken this further through thinking about how the drip feeding of 'Better Call Saul' is a good example of cultural determinism. You demonstrate some good use of wiki markup, although a reference to the concept of technological determinism would have strengthened your exercise. Also make sure to follow all parts of the exercise: you have not posted comments on colleague's pages. Engagement is an important part of the portfolio, so make sure to do this in future.

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) 10:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Online Footprint
In terms of online visibility, I have rather little presence across the platforms I use. My main online visibility comes from my Facebook account and my Snapchat account; however I have barely ever posted a status on Facebook, and Snapchat (supposedly) don't keep any of the actual photos that get taken by me or anyone else. I do also have a WhatsApp account, Facebook Messenger and a YouTube account, but the information from these accounts are private and not directly accessible to the average person. Facebook, where the majority of the online information about myself is, does have privacy settings which do give me a certain degree of control over who can see my information (for example the option I get to accept or reject friend requests). This portion of control Facebook and other sites allow me to have over my own account's privacy enables me to choose to a certain extent to whom I share information directly.

However, I have almost no control whatsoever when it comes to 'shared information', aka data that sites and companies (like Facebook and Google) collect based on my digital footprint. I am aware that everything I do online is probably recorded by somebody somewhere, and it is slightly worrying that I give very little thought to the fact that almost every word I have typed while online on my laptop is kept somewhere as data, ready to be accessed. An example of data collection is that Facebook have clearly figured I am an Arsenal fan, as I get stories on my news feed constantly which relates to them. If Facebook can figure that detail about me out, it makes me wonder just what else they can decipher just from my searches and mouse clicks. Even Snapchat keep a record of who you send pictures to, to such an extent that they can essentially predict who your best friends are just by seeing who you have been in contact with most.

Although searching for my name on Google would bring up almost nothing personal about me, I am acutely aware that everything I do online is recorded, and that my digital footprint is indelibly marked across the web.

D man choo (discuss • contribs) 12:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Interesting post
You make a very good point in noticing how little control we have of information in terms of the digital footprint we leave online and how much more is held than we even know about. This is also true that it’s more those who use social media platforms but anybody who browses webpage’s, searches on Google, does online shopping, etc. In terms of my own visibility, I don’t use as much social media as others my age. I tend to use more private types like Whatsapp and YouTube which you mentioned, so would have less online visibility than you and a typical person my age but as I do use the internet a lot in other ways and would still have a considerably large online footprint. Even though I don’t display information about myself online there is some information, mostly pictures on friend’s social media pages which I’m not in control of and which is publically available, so again puts emphasis on this limited control many of us experience. Another point to consider is to do with the data held about us in some sever somewhere, what’s its surveillance like? Is it secure? We will probably never really know but just hope its safe, after recent news of security hacks of personal information it does make you think. Kieranmcm95 (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I too have very little presence regarding social media. I have a Facebook and Instagram account but I have not posted anything on Facebook in years, and I have only ever uploaded one image to Instagram, which wasn't even a picture of myself. However, much like you have already mentioned, it is still eerie how I am constantly receiving advertisements through Facebook about sites I have visited. For instance, I am an avid rugby fan and I routinely access the homepage of Edinburgh Rugby and the RBS Six Nations to keep up to date with results and fixtures, and yet, everytime I log into Facebook I see advertisements for tickets to either an Edinburgh match or a Six Nations match, or promotions for rugby attire. Even with my limited interaction with social media I still leave behind a significant online footprint which is usable by third party organisations in the effort to persuade me to indulge in online shopping, which would only increase my footprint making me a target for more promotions. No matter what I do someone somewhere knows, and can obtain my data. Beespence1 (discuss • contribs) 22:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I find your article also very interesting! Like yourself I have a Facebook and snapchat account, along with an instagram and twitter account. However I try to keep my privacy censored so that it is only my friends and family, who I choose, can see what I post, which is also minimum. Despite this, even if people keep their accounts secure, it does not mean like you said that the account is completely hidden from the world. Just by typing my name into google it comes up with my Facebook account (along with the basic information like name, profile picture), but also shows my twitter name, highlights to the public i own an histogram account- although they can't see any of my photos- and any other record on the internet of where my name has been previously mentioned. When i was only 10, which is now 11 years ago i went to an athletic competition and there was a wee article in the paper about how I, along with other athletes, had performed. Even from 11 years ago, if you type my name into google, the article will pop up. This highlights I feel that we are not always as private as we may think we appear online, but also that data that is posted does not disappear in a hurry! In addition, as soon as I write my name into google, the first link which pops up is one called "people, businesses and places", which reveals your full name, the age category you are placed in, the town, region and first half of your post code and also your others family members who share this address! This is scary how public records allow internet users to openly find out this information about you just by typing your name into google! This is why, although I do enjoy being an active user on the internet, I feel that it is essential to keep things as private as you can about your personal life on the internet, as you never know who might try to access unwanted information about yourself! KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 08:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload
Information Overload is a term first used by the futurologist Alvin Toffler in 1970, when he predicted that the rapidly increasing amounts of information being produced would eventually cause people problems. All tese years later, his thinking has been proved right and we use his term to describe a feeling we all have - that there is an overwhelming amount of information out there available to us.

We have access to an endless supply of news, facts, journals, blogs, videos and other information that is constantly available to us because we are in constant connection to the internet through our always-on lifestyles. However, this always on lifestyle does not necessarily mean we sit with our phones out looking at Facebook all day. As Danah Boyd argues, "It's about living in a world where being networked to people and information wherever and whenever you need is just assumed. I may not always be on the Internet as we think of it colloquially, but I am always connected to the network. And that is what it means to be always on." This constant connection can prove to be overwhelming, though. We are programmed to be inquisitive and to want to know more, and this has led us to form an addiction - with data being so tantalisingly close, the desire to access it is extremely difficult, as we always want to be 'in the know' and be as up to date as possible. However, as we sift through pages and pages of info we end up skimming through the data with our brains almost switched off because we are not looking for anything specific; instead we are just looking for the sake of it.

But as Oliver Burkeman, in his article for The Guardian, explains, "The problem isn't that there is too much information - its the feeling of being out of control." This idea that the problem is us not the information begs the question 'what should we do to solve this?'. The website infogineering.com indicated some steps that must be taken in order to combat a feeling of Information Overload:
 * Spending less time on gaining information that is nice to know and more time on things that we need to know now.
 * Focusing on quality of information, rather than quantity.
 * Single-tasking, and keeping the mind focused on one issue at a time.

These steps do require self-policing. Only the individual themselves can stem their desire to keep on gathering info. Thinking of information overload as a personal issue rather than the fault of the info out there is the only way to have any control over it. Having said all that, the abundance of info out there is definitely not a bad thing, as long as it is not abused. Being linked to the web allows access to every piece of information necessary when it is needed, so instead of searching for books or just being left clueless, the required info is right there. Furthermore, the internet is a place of collective intelligence, where no one idea is prevalent. Instead, a multitude of ideas from various sources are available to access. These ideas all act independently, but as all are available they form a group of thoughts in which one can consume the opinions and thoughts of various others and gain a diverse range of thoughts rather than, as would happen in a book or journal, there is a singular and prevalent discourse that underlines everything. This collective intelligence is key to allowing anyone connected to the internet to have a democratic and informed view on a myriad of subjects.

D man choo (discuss • contribs) 10:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Useful comment
Firstly, I like your introduction to the term of information overload and show how it’s now viewed in the present day. I also agree with the idea that we programmed to be curious and want to know more, while I would add that as we look through this endless stream of information we will always come across something of interest or something that increases our knowledge in a certain topic. Another point I found interesting was this information being a personal issue that the person them self can control, which I do agree with but feel this issue can only tackled properly through a collective push to control the information. I do understand though that this data is only increasing and being constantly spread to different people, so would be an almost impossible task to control this flow of information. Kieranmcm95 (discuss • contribs) 11:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
The main purpose of the Wikibooks project An Internet of Everything%3F was, in an idealized world, to learn and explore the values associated with working as individual researchers parallel to working in research communities on Wikibooks: producing knowledge while collaborating, sharing and peer-reviewing other people’s work for the benefit of the community and the project. The idea was to use what Clay Shirky called our ‘cognitive surplus’ - to develop a collective intelligence that would create a project that was far superior to anything any one person could have managed without collaboration.

In practice, the collaborative nature of the Wiki project was not quite as utopian and democratic as it had seemed in theory. On a positive side, I felt that my use of wiki markup and knowledge of the functions of Wikibooks as a whole were developed exponentially by the amount of people working on the project. Through interactions with others and putting everyone’s work in the public sphere, I was able to grow my knowledge of how Wikibooks worked through other people’s knowledge and experiences. Collectively, I felt everybody walked away from the project with a much more developed idea of Wikimedia due to the collaboration with everyone else. Furthermore, the project gave users a space to ask questions and receive answers in a democratic way that allowed for the spread of collective knowledge as all users could see and interact with any questions and answers.

However, the project itself was fundamentally let down as an example of the civic web because there was a strong divergence between the core idea of collaboration and the reality of the project, which was that people ended up working individually and were much more focused on their own contributions and final grades. A key part of Pierre Levy’s idea of collective intelligence is that, “Far from merging individual intelligence into some indistinguishable magma, collective intelligence is a process of growth, differentiation, and the mutual revival of singularities.” The idea that the project could therefore be an ever-changing resource of information made by people with a clear common goal was negated by the project being individually assessed; people were more worried about meeting an acceptable quota of contributions than they were to the continued development of a resource.

The issue was mainly to do with the problem that the project did not fit into Christian Fuchs’ depiction of Wikimedia as a participatory democracy, which he describes as being for the common good – a focus on doing voluntary work in one’s own time for the personal desire “to make encyclopedic knowledge available to the world”. Thinking of property in binary terms of ‘public’ or ‘private’, the Wiki project should have been made for the public interest. Conversely, due to the time limits and it’s use as an assessment piece, it was not made voluntarily or for the common good of the public. Instead there was a predominant theme of work being done primarily in the name of private interests (namely grades) which prevented the project from being made in the name of common good.

In practice this led to the dividing up of the project into different people’s ‘sections’ in the hope that this would allow everybody to contribute something. Unfortunately this meant that many people did not get the opportunity to work of other parts of the project or felt they were pigeon-holed into a specific area. This method of dividing up the Wikibook ended up hindering the opportunities for people to give their knowledge wherever and whenever they saw fit. Time restrictions also meant people submitted work at different times, some too close to the deadline to allow everybody to view and edit all aspects of the final project, which is an issue most collaborations online do not have. In conclusion, although in a utopian world the project would allow for a collective piece of work created through participatory democracy, the reality was that the limitations put on the project along with its use as an individually assessed piece of work changed it from a project made from the public interest to a project shaped by private interest.

D man choo (discuss • contribs) 00:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment
Hi D man Choo, interesting post. I could agree to a certain extent that people went to work on the project individually, I fell this was always going to happen. However I feel this does not discard the project as a whole, as many others participated in group work and were able to claim the benefits of this, I was one. I also used Clay Shirky's theory of Cognitive Surplus to state a way in which the project could of been better, had people used all of their free time on the project, then it would of been much better, however once again this was not realistic. There was positives from this project I feel, and can relate to Jenkins theory of 'participatory democracy'. This theory talks about working together in groups to achieve a better goal, and I feel some points of it can relate to this project. One of the points states, ‘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)’. I feel you could agree with these, as you stated that you felt everyone walked away with a more developed idea of wiki books, and that the project gave users a space to ask questions and receive answers in a democratic way that allowed for the spread of collective knowledge as all users could see and interact with any questions and answers. This is what Jenkins theory was trying to show what happens when users work together. Although I agree that it could of been done more positively, I feel there was many positives to take away from this assignment. Cloudon14 (discuss • contribs) 10:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with many aspects of your account here. You have raised a lot of points I had not considered in relation to the division of work in the section. I also found in the part I was working on that instead of a holistic approach to the content it became very specialised. Although given the time frame and nature of the task, would you not agree this helped with completing the project by its deadline? Despite it's potential undermining of the theory you mention? --Idkun (discuss • contribs) 11:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

This is an interesting post and I do agree with most of the points you have raised. One of the aspects I feel was important which you mentioned was the peer review part of the assignment, which allowed everyone to help out and further knowledge among the community, basically the full point of why we comment on each others posts. I also like your idea that we have been able to develop our wikibook skills and gain a better understanding of how Wikimedia as a whole works, but does raise an interesting question of whether this project has promoted wikibooks to the students as I tool to use outside of university work? In terms of the point raised around how people ended up focusing up on their individual work, I do agree but I suppose that couldn't be helped considering the context of our project being individually assessed. While I also find after looking at the end result that I did feel the sense of being part of a collaboration and considering Clay Shirky's thoughts around cognitive surplus, I feel the project has to be looked at as ultimately creating a more enriched source than what would have been produced by just gathering everyone's individual work together. Kieranmcm95 (discuss • contribs) 00:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I really agree with your point about the fact that I too feel this module really has improved our knowledge of Wikimedia as a whole due to being involved and participating in the community. I agree with your point about people's contributions also: I feel ironically some contributors went into this task single-mindedly focussed on themselves achieving the best possible grade - which is important of course - but I feel as though the nature of this task was to promote team work and to have a collaborative mindset and perhaps the way in which this assignment is graded encourages people to adopt this individualist mindset. Rossmurray26 (discuss • contribs) 08:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
While you have demonstrated wiki markup competence and adapted to the wiki environment, this has not been matched by an engagement with colleagues. Your contributions and discussion on the chapter discussion page are limited and done in a short time span. Your wiki exercises improve progressivley and feature some good attempts to tie the questions back to module themes. They would benefit from the same level of engagement with secondary sources that you demonstrate in your chapter contributions.

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, 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 suggests somewhat deficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * lack of engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Lacking in reflexive and creative use of discussion pages

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 14:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)