User talk:Eric.berd

This is my discussion page for use in a class project.Eric.berd (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

=Wiki Exercise #1: Online Visibility and Footprint=

Wow, I have now created this wikibooks account, adding to my online footprint. I am very aware though, that every activity is public and potentially visible to everyone. What else adds to my online visibility and footprint?

Social Media
When thinking about this question, the first aspect that comes to mind are social media.

Facebook everywhere
I use Facebook and the platform probably knows a lot about me, although my usage of it has declined over the years. I have posted content more often in the past and now I mainly use it for keeping in touch with people and staying informed about events. I would love to spend less time on Facebook but I have realised that it is very present in the United Kingdom and that most people use this platform to collaborate, communicate and share news and events. Also, studying Media and Marketing, social media probably play an important role in my future career and having a knowledge of them is essential in the workplace. I therefore spend time on Facebook managing a charity’s page and gaining insight in all aspects of the platform.

Much of the communication happens on Messenger – Facebook’s messaging platform – and most users have installed the Messenger app in order to chat anytime anywhere on their phone, without having to go through the main Facebook website. Some people even see Facebook and Messenger as two separate entities. However, I have refused to install any one of the apps and I always only use Facebook and Messenger through a browser on my laptop or computer. Why is this?


 * I am aware that having an app installed on my mobile device enables it to collect a bunch of personal data. When Facebook already gathers a lot of data when I access the website through a browser and use their service, why should I open the door to my personal phone where it can find my pictures, messages, contacts, maybe my bank details, the apps I use, analyse the time I spend on my device, etc.? Looking at the advertising targeting criteria on Facebook is scary; it offers many options that you would not imagine the platform to know about people. Its algorithms are powerful and many of our behaviours seem predictable – will Facebook be able to predict our future?
 * When accessing the mobile version of Facebook on a phone and wanting to open messages, the platform now forces you to install the Messenger app to view and write messages. If you deny, you can’t communicate. The only way to bypass this is to request the desktop version on your mobile browser. I don’t support the coercion of having to install an app if I can get the same benefits through a browser, I don’t support the fact that you have to give way to even more information just to use a service on a different device.
 * I don’t want and have to be permanently contactable. If something is urgent, people would contact me via a medium that I check more regularly. The rest of the time I want to control the time I spend on the platform and enjoy time off without fearing of being distracted every moment. In fact, people need time off from technology to function properly, time for the mind to think independently and "maintain [its] ability to focus" . Also, I use Facebook on a desktop computer or a laptop to check the news when I have time. I don’t have the necessity of checking my news feed on the go.

Using Facebook, I know that everything I post could be seen by everyone. Even though I have set my privacy settings so that my full profile is only visible to my friends, I still use the platform mainly to enhance my personal brand, and therefore post content that could be relevant and give me an advantage in the workplace. I am careful in what I like, who I follow and I have actually decided to follow a few news channels in order for my news feed to be populated with relevant content that enhances my knowledge (and not only cat videos that waste my precious time). I would therefore say that the information is pretty much fully under my control. However, I don’t know what further data Facebook collects without my direct knowledge and how it exactly uses the data I provide, even though I am cautious in pretty much everything I do on social media.

WhatsApp personally
Considering that WhatsApp belongs to Facebook, the company has potentially a lot more information about me. I use the platform as a means of personal communication, talking about basically everything. Although I wouldn’t know a way for the public to easily access the data – especially with end-to-end encryption enabled – I am still cautious in the way I communicate. I prefer using more secure means of communication for sensitive information and act approximately as I would act in “real life”. As far as I know, Facebook could still access my data and use it at its discretion.

LinkedIn professionally
I have a LinkedIn account on which I have uploaded information about my education, studies, interests and work experience. This platform is used almost exclusively for employment and work-related matters. I highlight my skills and experience, look for jobs and stay in touch with people in a professional setting. I would say that I control even more what I do on this platform and that I do everything with the knowledge in mind that it is public. My profile is actually set to public every once in a while, to enable employers to find me more easily, and to get my personal brand out there.

Snapchat?
I’ve used Snapchat in the past to receive and send pictures regularly to friends. The company collects this personal information among other data (it will for example take information it receives from contact lists of other users and link it to my person), but claims that their servers automatically delete certain data after a period of time (24 hours, 90 days, etc.). I am aware however, that some of my friends might have taken screenshots or stored information I have sent them, somewhere on their devices. Sharing information with people always requires a certain amount of trust and I expect my contacts not to use the information they might have, to do harm for example. Because I don’t have a use for Snapchat anymore and I haven’t used it actively in a long time, I’ve just deleted my account while writing this paragraph. It should be deleted within 30 days, so I don’t worry much about what Snapchat does with my data. And because I trust my friends, my online footprint has, in my opinion, not been enhanced a lot when using this platform.

The wider web
To further analyse my online footprint, it is worth looking at other places online that might hold information about me, besides social networks. I know that a few websites have written articles about me or mentioned me somewhere, but they enhance my personal brand as I’m happy with every context in which my full name is given.

Online accounts
Online accounts are also enhancing my online footprint. In fact, I hold many accounts for multiple websites. Most accounts are fully private and therefore only visible to the company where I hold the account. Some can obviously share my personal information with third parties, but it is probably not visible to the wider public (except if the company’s database is hacked and the hackers decide to publish all information – thinking about this scenario is scary, but I tell myself that it can’t happen). Most of the time, the website will hold information about my usage of the service – maybe collect other data as well – which is not ideal, but you can’t escape it completely. If I don’t need an account, I don’t open one; if an account is helpful or gives me access to some benefits, I might consider it. But I’m always conscious of the information I supply willingly. You sometimes have to abstain from comfort in favour of your privacy: not storing or saving bank card or login details for example.

Conclusion
The internet holds quite a lot of information about me and probably most other people. However, I find it important to be aware of its implications. I think consciously about who I want to share my data with and what data I share, what I want to be publicly available and what I prefer to keep for myself. My online footprint might be less visible, or at least more controlled than some other people’s.

Meikle claims that social media are “networked database platforms that combine public with personal communication”. We can participate in online communities and choose what to share and with whom, every action adding to our online footprint. However, these platforms are still business models and make money by collecting and processing our data. It becomes difficult to know exactly in which hands our information will finally fall. The internet also makes an infinite amount of knowledge available to the world. What others say about you could appear on any website and be visible across the globe. It can either harm you or you can use it to your advantage, building a strong personal brand.

Having written this, I know that it's publicly available from now on. It’s a scary thought, considering that I have given some insight into my online life and that I'm concerned about privacy. I’m glad you don’t know exactly who I am.

Wiki Exercise #1: Comments

 * I am giving the commenting a try Very Well done on your Wiki Exercise 1.I am very impressed by the way you have done this and will try to understand how to make my contributions reflect the coding and outlay as is usual with wikipedia pages. Again well done and we share some similar concerns; but your contribution is nicely delivered. I hope this works -- Eric.berd AuthenticEnough (discuss • contribs) 11:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * First of all I'd like to mention that you're use of Wiki Layout's is wonderfully done, and it has given me a pause for thought on how I can use it better as we continue forward with our group assignments. With regard to Facebook and messenger, I personally have it locked down so that it cannot be found unless you are a friend already. Which has meant that I have not received random requests from people. The only time requests come through are via Friends of Friends or from when we have setup our course group chats and adding people via that method. I don't tend to post much on Facebook, maybe the rare photo or location check in and maybe something motorsport related but it is the one area that I tend not to use too much, although I am guilty of browsing other peoples posts when I have time to spare. Messenger on the other hand has become rather important, hearing from friends from afar, even ones local who do not use whats app, since it is nicer to online chat via keyboard then through a touchscreen, but when it comes to privacy I have refused to supply them information such as my phone number and while email was a requirement this is kept private so nobody can obtain that just from browsing. :Beardoin-AS (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe that the privacy issues Eric.berd brings up in his writing is a valid concern that many people have. Despite the fact that Facebook is his least used social media platform, I find that I use this platform more than others. As a student studying marketing, I find myself thinking more and more about the information I place on the internet and what it is being used for. I agree with the concerns Eric.berd brings up, however I also see the many benefits associated with the algorithms that use our data to tailor our experience. Having my personal information online helps save time and effort. For example, whenever I am on facebook I find that I do not want to continuously log in and out of accounts or type in the same information over and over to have access to different content. By saving my information and acknowledging my preferences tailors my experiences to be more convenient. It is also helpful to have information already stored online when accessing different applications or social media platforms that have the choice to log in with a Facebook account.Contrary to what Eric.berd felt, I personally find it more convenient to download these platforms onto my phone, and find that the majority of the time my internet interactions occur there instead of on my computer. He states that, “ I don’t support the coercion of having to install an app if I can get the same benefits through a browser”. While this is true in some ways, I believe that the user experience can differ when using different devices depending on the types of goals the user is trying to achieve. Accessing social media on a cellphone tends to allow more options and quicker interactions. An example of this is when people take pictures on their phone, and then can instantly post them. Whereas on a computer the photos have to be transferred from one device to another before accessing the internet. Overall, I believe that privacy issues occur when the user is unaware of what the company is doing with their information. When awareness is achieved, than the user can make an educated decision on whether to share their information to make their experience tailored to them or to remain more private and their experience more general in nature.MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 01:24, 4 March 2019 (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:


 * 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.


 * This work is at the upper end of this grade band, so a little improvement will go a long way to attaining a higher mark. 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 criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets. Less instrumentally, and more in relation to this particular post, you would have achieved an “Excellent” grade, were it not for the fact that you went excessively over the word limit. Please read the instructions which state that you need to “address each exercise brief specifically. It is also important to be concise in online writing, so try to keep your posts to no more than around 2500-3000 characters each” Unless other wise stated.


 * 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 – these are especially good. I like that you have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!) and also that you have engaged in discussion in an open and critical way (that is to say, you've responded to what other people are saying and are contributing meaningfully to discussion - arguably the civic element of wiki that you ought to be thinking about, which you clearly are). Keep this up!

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

=Annotated bibliography=

Casero-Ripollés, A. (2018). Research on political information and social media: key points and challenges for the future. El Profesional de la Información, 27(5), 964-974. Doi: 10.3145/epi.2018.sep.01.


 * In this article Casero-Ripollés analyses how social media and digital platforms have changed the production, distribution and consumption of political information, and exposes limitations of current research and challenges for future ones. He does this by reviewing available literature. The author identifies current topics surrounding digital platforms (information overflow, filters, 'incidental consumption', big data and personalisation) and how these bring benefits but also pose challenges for political figures and journalists. Casero-Ripollés also gives an overview about the impact social media has on political information and therefore on society. It is therefore useful to our research topic as it highlights key characteristics of digital platforms and conveys aspects that could be applied to social movements. It could also form the basis for looking at future trends and changes in social media. Although the article provides an overview and a starting point for our research, further investigation will be necessary for every topic as it is merely a literature review analysing other research papers.

Eric.berd (discuss • contribs) 11:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Collaborative Essay Critical Evaluation - What are Wikis?
Wikibooks is a wiki-based Wikimedia project that creates free, open content textbooks. Along with its sibling projects like Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, etc. the platform is funded and hosted by a nonprofit, charitable organisation, the Wikimedia Foundation. Its mission is ‘to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.’ Wikis want to make knowledge accessible to everyone. They are a step towards what Fuchs calls a ‘commons-based internet’, where users participate in the content available, ‘co-create and share knowledge’ but most importantly own the internet. In fact, Fuchs argues that the internet is a means of communication and that ‘communication is an essential feature of human society’. The commons of society, and so the internet which is a necessary feature, should be available for free to everyone and not owned privately.

This is achieved by an open platform where everyone can create, change and participate in articles. Many voluntary workers share knowledge and make it accessible. The content published on the platform is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license, similar to its sister project Wikipedia. This means that the content on the platforms can be used and redistributed for any purpose if one gives credit and distributes the production under the same license. Everything that is contributed to any of the projects is public and visible to potentially everyone. By definition anyone will then be able to make changes to the production and to make the end output better. Articles on Wikibooks and especially Wikipedia are continually evolving and not one-time and finished products.

I recently participated in a project on Wikibooks where we created an article from scratch and used the discussion page to share ideas. In fact, the basic concept of Wikis puts collaboration at the centre of the platforms. Many people work together on a same product/article/contribution, potentially everyone in the world can participate. Every article has a ‘talk’ or ‘discussion’ page which is used to talk about how to make it better or aspects to include. As the internet enables work in real-time, I found it useful to be able to work on a part of our project at the same time as someone else. It also enabled me to work anytime and anywhere and to still see what people have contributed to the Wikibooks article.

One of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia says: ‘Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility.’ I think that this can be applied to all Wiki projects. Authors, editors, etc. all work towards a common goal, support each other and bring in the ideas relative to their skills and knowledge. Fuchs (2015) argues that the people participating on those platforms are part of a ‘well-educated elite’ who have the necessary knowledge, skills and time to participate and share kmowledge.

In regards to our project, I realised that the discussion page was used constructively to give opinions, suggestions and share ideas, but also to discuss certain topics and find a consensus. Even though our whole group never met in person, it was possible to work and collaborate to the project and to delegate tasks. It was very important however, to keep the discussion page organised. Contributions add up quickly and you want to have everything sorted out at the beginning to keep clarity on the page. We could have made our page even more efficient by making new contributions easily visible and to organise the page into even more categories. It was also a challenge to get everyone from the group on the same level because every member might find a different use for the page. Decisions had to be sometimes taken without having the confirmation of everyone but because every user can amend, delete and add content, this was not a big issue.

Comments
I found it interesting that you brought up what Fuchs believes in the commons based internet, where we share our work, in a collaborative way with one another, and that referring to the creative commons method in which the wiki project’s subscribe to as ways to further this endeavour. I’m not sure if what Fuchs believes in regarding owning the internet can ever be fully fulfilled due to the nature of the capitalist society always wanting to make it a profit driven enterprise. While Wiki’s are donation driven not for profits in their model is very admirable and something I’m grateful for when researching many a topic. I feel that many a corporation out there is still aiming to make as much financial gain as possible on top of their market share. While not a wiki we do see the “free” social media platforms such as Facebook proactively selling space to advertisers to gain revenue, and that’s just what we see on the surface. And what we share on that platform, we have signed away our rights regarding usage what is posted. Facebook can reuse a photo we post for their own ends if they wish to.

But where creative commons comes into its own, while something I wouldn’t subscribe to myself for my own photo work, as having invested thousands into the hardware, to giveaway something for free is very difficult, the idea behind creative commons given the creator the control to share their work as they choose is very empowering, be it by allowing people to reuse the images at no cost, or to allow editing of the images and even having the control to say, free for personal use, but not for commercial use. But it is one area where I would ask the creator to think carefully over what they wish to do, because if they feel they can make some form of career from their creative works then there is a danger in using the commons model that they will lose that ability. Now this is more of opinion on the subject by myself, but I know in that retaining full copyright to my own photographic work, when an advertising agency contacted me to use a photo for an advert campaign they had to negotiate a licence and royalty agreement with me in order to use the work in what they were creating.

If I had enabled the creatives model on it where I gave away all my rights then they could have been away and using the photo without my consent and for free, and as someone that sees my own future within the industry I couldn’t allow commons to be associated with what I do. While it is great in theory over what Fuchs believes that the internet should be a free source of material is maybe half correct. For the end user who is viewing the material then maybe this is an acceptable view, but as a creator and re-user of the work someone else has made, then at this point then some form of recompense should be considered, in particular if the company in particular is a media company that has the resources to look after these creative industries people.

When looking back at our wikibooks project, I do very much agree that our level of collaboration, used within the discussion page was very constructive. Every member took the time to contribute, read and objectively look at the posting before adding their own views, but also acknowledging what is good in the original posters message. If this didn’t happen then there could have been a danger of the project derailing as the trust between all the collaborative members would have eroded. I feel that this level of trust shown between our own group is a general consensus of how the majority of Wiki users work within their own project groups as well. Beardoin-AS (discuss • contribs) 03:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: ENGAGEMENT ON DISCUSSION PAGES & CONTRIBS
Grade descriptors for Engagement: Engagement on discussion pages, and contribs of this standard attain the following grade descriptor. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this descriptor 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:
 * Good. Among other things, good contributions 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 formatting, 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, discussing this in a transparent way with fellow researchers on the Discussion Pages. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.

As instructed in the labs, and outlined in the assessment brief documentation, students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.

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:
 * Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable”
 * Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant”
 * Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial”
 * 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

Overall:
 * substantial – took a while to get there, though.

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

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

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.
 * Good

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly correspond 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:


 * 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.


 * This work is at the lower end of this grade band, and there are a number of reasons for this. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might have been useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets. Less instrumentally, and more in relation to your work, the content here is actually of very good quality, and you are clearly able to think critically and laterally. The problem here is in relation to attention to detail, where you have commented upon others’ work as instructed by the brief, but these come in much later than required, and you omit the peer-review element for Ex 4 altogether.


 * Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts, but what you have submitted is quite good as it is.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – see above… these are fairly good, although late, and you omit the final response to Wiki Ex4, which was a crucial oversight on your part. 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.

General:
 * Reading and research: evidence of critical engagement with set materials - yes; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material –yes.


 * Argument and analysis: well-articulated and well-supported argument - yes; evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position) - yes; evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections) - yes; evidence of independent critical ability – yes.


 * Presentation: good use of wiki markup and organisational skills generally.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)