User talk:EmLouBrough

This is my wikibooks user discussion page for use during my Digital Media course. I will be exploring wikibooks with my class and registering my thoughts on this page. Please feel free to contribute and help my class. EmLouBrough (discuss • contribs) 14:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1 - Educational Assignment
Dwarf Fortress is a video game developed by Tarn Adams, first released in  Alpha in 2006. It uses text-based graphics to portray procedurally generated fantasy worlds, which allows for a depth not possible with 2D or 3D games due to limitations in processing power. Examples of this depth include a combat system detailed enough to report on damage to individual limbs and organs; a dynamic weather system based on air pressure, moisture and wind patterns; and world histories which stretch over thousands of years.

It is not possible to win the game as there is no concrete goal beyond surviving for as long as possible. Because of this, an online community whose main goal is to have “fun” – to lose in as interesting a way as possible – has developed to share their exploits. Some of the more well-known contributions are the story of Boatmurdered and “Chasing the elusive mermaid”.

Boatmurdered was a game played by fourteen players using a single save file, passed from one to the next after one in-game year had elapsed. It was recorded as a Let's Play which detailed the progression of events "from somewhat casual daily elephant deaths to retired rulers rampaging and beating people to death (while burning alive)".

“Chasing the elusive mermaid” was a thread on the official Bay 12 Games forum in which members discussed the best way to harvest the bones of merpeople – a sentient species in the game – because they were very valuable at the time. Some people believe that the decrease in value of mermaid bones and the implementation of a mechanic which disallows the butchering of sentient species to the game came about because the developer was so disturbed by this thread.

These examples show how the level of detail in the game means that there is always something new to find and as such the related online community continues despite the game's age.

References:

EmLouBrough (discuss • contribs) 15:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Comment

 * This post evidences a really good working knowledge of markup and how to make the most effective use of the interface. You really have a good handle on this and how it all works already. This is a good sign! It would have been useful to try to feed this into the themes and concerns of the module though, and you haven’t really engaged with this part of the brief at all (always, always, pay close attention to what the brief is asking you to do e.g. you could have discussed this in the context of a number of themes e.g. tech determinism, or perhaps online identity, particularly in relation to roleplaying and avatar use in game culture).

RE: Comments on others’ work

 * These are on time and provide an excellent example of how the format can be used to exchange ideas and discuss work-in-progress - lots of content, scope and reference to module themes is made explicit. Remember that your comments on other people's work is weighted as heavily as your own post when it comes to grades - in this case your comments have, if anything, enabled you to pull your marks up considerably. Keep this up!! GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2 - Educational Assignment
I'm not sure that my presence on social networks is as big as most other people's, despite me having spent a lot of my time online since I was a child. Searching for my name on Google doesn't come up with any results connected to me. Searches for an old username comes up with profiles connected to an old email address, most of which haven't been updated since before I left high school more than five years ago, and which aren't connected to my real name.

When it comes to more recent networks, I don't use my Facebook or  Rooster Teeth accounts any more, I deleted my  tumblr and  twitter accounts to help myself focus on more important things like coursework and writing, and my  Steam profile is private. My Youtube account is also mostly private; I only watch videos and don't favourite them or post my own, and don't use my real name. These are the only social networks I can remember actively posting on in the last five years. I was much more active on several of them until recently, but now even my own homepage is almost completely empty, except for an email address people can use to get in touch with me.

The reason that I post so little online now, and that I have deleted so many of my profiles, has nothing to do with being uncomfortable sharing; in fact, it was quite the opposite. I spent far too much time discussing experiences and shared interests with strangers online and found that I was spending almost all of my time on social media, to the detriment of my university coursework and personal writing, even though what I was discussing was often relevant to both. I decided to step away from the internet, limiting the number of social media sites I was on and the amount of time I spent on them, and I have since found that my time management, attention span, and creative output have improved considerably. --EmLouBrough (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3
"There's no formula for embracing always-on practices, and we must each develop our own personal strategies for navigating a world with ever increasing information."

It is hard not to get distracted when there is as vast a source of information as the internet right at your fingertips. In fact, it is so hard that I have had to solve the problem not by resisting temptation, but by removing it. On my PC and laptop I have installed various apps that monitor and block access to specific sites to stop me from visiting the time-consuming websites I don't have the self restraint to stay away when I should be doing something else.

The two applications I currently use are | RescueTime and | Cold Turkey. Cold Turkey allows me to block selected websites across all browsers on my computer, while RescueTime tracks the websites I visit and the amount of time I spend on each one, allowing me to set goals for my internet and application usage.

I have come to deal with my internet usage in this way because I require the internet for a lot of the writing I do—I need access to sites that will allow me to research certain subject matter—but it is very easy to go down the rabbit hole and suddenly have spent four hours reading something completely irrelevant. Monitoring the sites I use and setting goals for maximum time tends to prevent this from happening, and if it doesn't I can block access entirely.

As boyd says, "Humans are both curious and social critters". While it is certainly valuable to have access to the vast network of information that is the internet, having access at all times and just not making use of it is something that is beyond me. --EmLouBrough (discuss • contribs) 10:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4
The Wikibooks project was an interesting look at how the internet can be used to facilitate the gathering and compiling of information, and also the difficulties involved in bringing it together in a useful format.

Decentralization
I had difficulty getting in touch with my group as I did not know any of the people in it and did not have their contact details. All our communication was therefore carried out on the discussion page for our subject. The reality is that most Civic Web projects, such as Wikipedia, are carried out in this fashion, and thus it could perhaps be said that our lack of face-to-face contact offered a collaborative experience that showed the decentralization which Enzenberger says is an "emancipatory use of media" and ostensibly a positive one; I, however, found it to be emancipatory to the point that many of us were left somewhat (or completely) directionless for the majority of the project.

Hierarchy
Gauntlett speaks of "harnessing the collective abilities of the members of an online network". My group seemed to struggle because we were not members of that online network prior to the project; we were all newcomers to the site and, I would guess, to working with such an extensive number of collaborators. Thus, the collaboration of the group was quite haphazard as no one really seemed to be confident enough with the medium to take charge and get the ball rolling. As Lanier suggests, responsibility given to a group is given, essentially, to an abstract concept. If no one is willing to step up as a leader, organization of tasks within such a project will be difficult. This was clear in our group project, where a hierarchy was required, but did not really establish itself until closer to the end of the project.

Conclusion
Whether it is a result of this lack of hierarchy or simply a result of the collaborative process shared by Wikipedia and Wikibooks, there are clear examples of what Lanier compares to "reading the bible closely", the "faint presence of the voices of various anonymous authors and editors". But despite the somewhat chaotic nature of the collaboration, I feel that the project as a whole was a worthwhile endeavor. Regardless of whether or not the finished wikibook turns out to be a uniformly good collection of information, the process of compiling it was an interesting exercise which allowed us students, as individuals, to see the concepts discussed in lectures and seminars actually in practice. --EmLouBrough (discuss • contribs) 11:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments
I like that in your reflection you touched on the hierarchy. I found that throughout this entire project, the biggest issue was lack of direction and leadership. I think that a lot of this came from how large the group was and the unfamiliarity of the project format. I felt uncomfortable stepping up myself, when I was unsure on how to do many of the part. I can only imagine that many other people felt the same way. However, the lack of hierarchy in this project made it difficult to get our project organized early on. Without organization it is hard to have flow in our project and I think these Wikibook pages became a little disjointed because of that. I think this example of civic web was helpful to see how together, many people can create something much larger. For this project to work optimally, a leader and roles should probably be established before beginning the project that way everyone would know their role and in what direction to head in.

Furthermore, I don’t think that splitting up the groups into smaller groups of five made much of a difference. Even though it would be a smaller group to work with, we still needed to organize ourselves with the entire larger group and find leadership throughout the larger group. For the majority of this project it felt like a much too large group working without much cohesive direction. Once again, this could be remedied if hierarchy was determined before beginning a project like this while working on the civic web.

It was nice working with you one this project. Thank you for your contributions.Hlat123 (discuss • contribs) 14:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Your concentration on hierarchy is interesting. In our larger group, I found that a hierarchy did form, based around people who had been the most pro-active in learning to navigate the discussion page early on. This gave these members a huge advantage as they had far more influence over what topics were allocated and to whom. In this sense I think it may be an indicator that collective intelligence can often favour the person with the loudest voice or the person who can type the quickest, which I don't think is beneficial. There will have undoubtedly been so many untapped mines of really interesting information that didn't make it to the final product because the people who were thinking just didn't get it down in time in a format that suited them. I agree that we needed a leader, but a leader needs to be selfless and in this project I don't think that would have been possible. The allocation of tasks I felt was quite dog-eat-dog but we were working for a grade in a uni module so I think that part was inescapable.Ted 95 (discuss • contribs) 10:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
You are the main contributor to the section on The Law of Suppression of Radical Potential, and also contributed to the definition of cultural determinism, as well as a couple of other minor contribs. Both entries are very well written, and are supported through reading of independent secondary materials. A pity that all contribs to content happened the day before the project ended – it is abundantly clear that you have a *lot* or potential, and this is not fully realised here.

Wiki Exercises


 * 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.

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 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)