User talk:Danielmay89

My online visibility today is probably less than it was, say, 5 years ago. That might seem incongruous when you look it as pre/during University but I think that social media has just lost its buzz for me.

Back in 2009 I discovered Facebook. Late to the party I know but I was hooked. At the time I was working in a travel agent; a particularly quiet travel agent with a computer and something of a laissez-faire IT policy. It was perfect for indulging my new found addiction. I’d sit from 9-6 every day inanely commenting on every status, sharing jokes, made stupid groups and warbling on about how bored I was at work. Come to think of it, I was basically my Dad now. Scary thought.

As time passed, and I moved to an office with a pesky IT team, my interest in Facebook waned and today I don’t even have an account. Also once you hit your mid-twenties Facebook kind of just becomes a collection of baby photos and girls that you used to see changing their surnames. Time to move on I thought.

Twitter became my new thing in around 2011 when I got an iPhone. It was the Facebook obsession to the power of ten; I could tweet 100s of times in a day and this seemed to be *the point* and most importantly there were less relatives present. Instagram and Snapchat came along around the same time and for while there were close companions. There is however a limit to how many pictures you can post of new trainers or bottles on nights out before you start to question the entire tragic venture. It’s not making anyone look good is it? So I deleted those from my life too.

Fast forward to today and I’ve got no social media presence. Nothing. Nada. Can’t be doing with it. I do my best to socialise in person and keep better contact with my group of mates now than I ever did with Facebook or Twitter. Is that because they had all muted me? Can’t be sure.

=Annotated Bibliography=

(1) Fuchs, Christian. 2012. Web 2.0 surveillance and art. In Net works: case studies in web art and design, ed. xtine burrough, 121-127. New York: Routledge.

(2) In this article, Fuchs comments on Tim O'Reilly's notion of Web 2.0 which is defined as the second stage of the internet, where users are driving their own content and creating a distinct "footprint" which is then in turn open to surveillance. In the article Fuchs cites work from Foucault, Horkheimer and Castells to develop up his hypothesis.

(3) Fuchs cites the work of Michel Foucault, who described surveillance and as "disciplinary power" and compared it to a panopticon in 1973. He quotes Foucault directly stating that someone that is under surveillance “is seen, but he does not see; he is the object of information, never a subject in communication“ which is clearly a powerful critique of mass surveillance long before this particular form of mass surveillance had even been conceived.

(4) The focus of the article is the relationship between Web 2.0 and surveillance and it's corrosive effect on society. It explains clearly the ways in which online activity is used to build a portfolio on individuals and sell their information on to parties who plan to use it either for commerce or more nefarious purposes.

(5) In conclusion, this is a useful article which explains the harmful nature of mass surveillance and offers a more critical analysis of Web 2.0 and collective intelligence than some other sources who rather skirt around the harmful effects. I would consider this source to be very relevant to the topic I am going to be working on and would definitely consider drawing reference from it and the other sources cited within.

Key (1) Citation (2) Introduction (3) Targets and Research methods (4) Focus (5) Conclusion

Danielmay89 (discuss • contribs) 09:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
This is a concise summary of the article in question and with the use of keys has helped to follow it easily. I particularly liked the use of quotes showing you have engaged properly with the article. The article sounds like it will be greatly useful in your research and collab essay and look forward to reading it. The only little criticism is that you haven't mentioned any limitations which would have made it more of a discussion and offered a different perspective. Other than that I thoroughly enjoyed and keep up the good work! --Funkyalex (discuss • contribs) 22:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

2. Hey I think the bibliography is very well written and concise. It elaborates on mass surveillance in a way the describes the vital information needed. It also elaborates on the future usage of the information will be good use for your essay. Chrisalwayson (discuss • contribs) 15:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

=Reflective Account=

Reflecting on the process of the collaborative essay is a difficult thing to do. Firstly, it didn’t feel like a collaborative project until the latter stages on thus, I feel a sense of regret that getting the full experience of the project was virtually impossible.

In the early stages, I struggled to find a group and when I did eventually find someone to start a group, we were split up without explanation rather than having another person added to supplement. This was hardly ideal given the lack of opportunity to meet face to face this semester. It’s worth noting that when I was initially looking for a group, other students were very helpful, sending mails trying to match me up with other stragglers. This partly made up for other shortfalls in communication but added to frustration at being separated from the other person I had started to make a group with.

In terms of the essay itself, it ended up being submitted at around 2000 words as one member of my eventual group elected never to get in touch. Efforts to discuss this with lecturers were given short shrift which was disappointing and ultimately the essay feels rather incomplete. The only other member of my group did get in touch and participate and luckily we were able to discuss, plan and submit some work, albeit in a last minute manner.

I feel that in future years, more effort to communicate with students and make allowances for smaller/inactive groups would be beneficial. It felt as though there was no back up plan for inactive group members. On several occasions, whilst worrying about not being able to submit anything, I questioned whether I could prepare something individually but these requests either weren’t answered or weren’t really acknowledged. This essentially meant that in the end, the essay was submitted late and lacking wordcount.

To conclude, there were definite positives to this assignment and ultimately I think I would really have enjoyed and benefited from the project with a small number of adjustments. The issues we faced were very disappointing and definitely affected the quality of the project but in the end I think me and the other member of the group made the best of a bad situation.

Danielmay89 (discuss • contribs) 22:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: DISCUSSION, ENGAGEMENT, CONTRIBS

 * Engagement on discussion pages of this standard attain the following grade descriptor for contribs. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this will give you a clearer idea of how the grade you have been given relates to the standards and quality expected of work at this level:
 * Clear Fail. Assignment responses receiving marks below 30% tend to not contain any merit or relevance to the module. Contrinbutions are one-liners, sometimes made up of text-speak, if there are any contributions at all. Often they are indicative of failure to comment on other students’ ideas, and therefore do not engage with the crucial peer-review element. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement, or the user has been blocked for vandalism or other contraventions of wiki T&C. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.

Students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.


 * None. You have clearly not followed instructions.

•	Evidence from contribs to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of editorial activity as evidenced through ‘contribs’). These are primarily considered for quality rather than quantity, but as a broad guideline: o	Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial” o	Items on a contribs list that are <1000 characters are important, and are considered in the round when evaluating contribs as a whole because of their aggregate value


 * None of a discursive nature that would evidence discussion of ideas for publication on the essay page.

•	Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages o	Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration o	Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay o	Evidence of peer-review of others’ work


 * None.

•	Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages o	Clear delegation of tasks o	Clearly labelled sections and subsections o	Contributions are all signed


 * None.

•	Civility. Your conduct is a key component of any collaboration, especially in the context of an online knowledge-building community. Please respect others, as well as observe the rules for civility on wiki projects. All contribs are moderated.


 * Not enough material to warrant evidence either way.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is in relation to the making criteria as outlined in the relevant documentation, it should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band overall.

Posts of this standard do not address the assignment requirements. They offer little to no engagement with the concerns of the module. They are poorly written and comments are often extremely brief or missing. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.


 * There is clearly room for improvement here. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and (especially for this, perhaps, the Understanding) criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets. For example, the #3 exercise, you barely leave a sentence on another user’s page, and certainly do not invite discussion. Ex #4 completely misses the point, and you simply ignore the brief to describe one or two experiences of group work.


 * Additionally, making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would have made a considerable difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – not enough of these, and simply too brief. Remember that the comments are "worth" as much as posts themselves. The reason for this is not only to help encourage discussion (a key element of wiki collaboration!) but also to get you to reflect upon your own work. This can all, of course be used to fuel ideas that might form part of your project work.

General:
 * Reading and research: Aside from the annotated bibliography entry (which is rather perfunctory) there is very little evidence of reading and independent study here.


 * Argument and analysis: Probably the weakest part of your exercise work (see above comments).


 * Presentation: More work needed.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 10:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)