User talk:FMS9A4-TheGoTeam

Let's discuss!

Hey, this is good that we have this page. We can discuss what we need to do/documents to reference/information we should add to the page. I can start finding online journals and sources that will help us! Katmcknight.nitx (discuss • contribs) 21:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm researching the topic now and am writing about Clay Shirky and his concepts, we should come up with an order of what we will write about! Katmcknight.nitx (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I've created a new section for Main Theorists, where I think we can highlight certain important things that these people (Shirky, Lanier, etc.) have produced/studied/talked about in regards to CS. This can include Shirky's TED Talk, his book, Lanier's article on DIGITAL MAOISM: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism. Is there anything else we could add to this? Katmcknight.nitx (discuss • contribs) 16:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, should we mention the hive mind? LittleLauraBeaton (discuss • contribs) 21:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC) ... Never mind.. It's been done now... LittleLauraBeaton (discuss • contribs) 07:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

We should write more about the different theorists, especially the ones mentioned in today's lecture, as well as their concepts. Katmcknight.nitx (discuss • contribs) 10:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I have almost completed a breakdown of Skirky's TED talk in which I analyse and expand upon much of what he said and the examples he gave. I'd be happy to discuss with anyone who has took a particular interest in the talk about what to include and how we can contribute equally. LiamHagan94 (discuss • contribs) 12:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I agree that taking a look at the other theorists is essential. Lanier and Gauntlett in particular ought to be written about in some detail. I have found the 'further reading' that Greg listed after todays lecture and on that of CS have been very useful re: G&L. LiamHagan94 (discuss • contribs) 12:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Shall we delegate tasks for each other to do? And then possibly run them by the other group so we don't overlap their work? Like maybe a some people do the theorists in todays lecture, and others can explained on what's already been put on by the other group, and then the new bits we were talking about adding while in our seminar? Seems like there's enough tasks to go around LittleLauraBeaton (discuss • contribs) 15:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a great idea, we all can take different parts and start working on those. I'll start reading up on the further reading that Liam mentioned there! I'm also happy to help create new sub-categories and organise things on the page.Katmcknight.nitx (discuss • contribs) 15:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good. What other sub-categories do we need? I think I'm going to expand on the bit about Jaron Lanier.. That bit's looking a tad bare just now... LittleLauraBeaton (discuss • contribs) 15:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Who made the Key Theorists part in the Key Concepts section? Because we can move that to the Main Theorists part to keep things consistant. Katmcknight.nitx (discuss • contribs) 15:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The other team have discussed using the APA ref system, and I'm relaying that on here too! Katmcknight.nitx (discuss • contribs) 15:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think Liam is writing about the TED talk, and that'd be great if you expand more on Lanier's section, Laura. Other theorists that we could mention could include Abigail de Kosnik and Tiziana Terranova (both mentioned in the CS lecture) as well as Harold Rheingold, Henry Jenkins, Pierre Lévy, Surowiecki and David Gauntlett (all from today's lecture). Katmcknight.nitx (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll have my part on the TED talk up ASAP. Fraser has been looking in to it as well so we'll both be contributing to that. It should be completed entirely by tomorrow. Once I'm finished with that I'll look in to Lanier & Digital Maoism if you'd like any assistance with that, Laura. APA is great, I'm glad that's been sorted out. LiamHagan94 (discuss • contribs) 18:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

My TED talk analysis is now live so feel free to begin a discussion about whether or not anybody feels as if it needs to be edited or expanded upon in any way. LiamHagan94 (discuss • contribs) 19:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys, just catching up on all of this! Sounds great so far, the page is looking good. I'm going to start researching more into the lessons of Cognitive Surplus and how it has effected people. I will post anything I can find and let me know what you think. Kate Galbraith (discuss • contribs) 20:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to start putting the words in the glossary that need defining, that way we can all take a few words each to define. After we have done that we can discuss what needs changed in any of our definitions? LittleLauraBeaton (discuss • contribs) 09:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

... And I will also look at those other theorists! LittleLauraBeaton (discuss • contribs) 09:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm organising the Main Theorists part a bit more by creating categories for Kosnik and Terranova. Katmcknight.nitx (discuss • contribs) 10:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

George helped me with referencing! He posted this to my discussion page: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/RefCodeHandout.pdf LittleLauraBeaton (discuss • contribs) 13:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Did some research last night on Cognitive Surplus and I have found a good example of something that has happened quite recently. It is public coming together to join the search for the missing Malaysian plane and is a great example of people using their spare time to help rather than waste time watching TV. Check out the link and let me know if you think it would be relevant in the wikibook! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2583807/Did-Malaysian-fisherman-missing-flight-MH370-flying-low-Gulf-Thailand.html Kate Galbraith (discuss • contribs) 13:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good example! What section would we include that in? LittleLauraBeaton (discuss • contribs) 13:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking of just creating a new section called 'How things have changed' or something like that. Thoughts? Kate Galbraith (discuss • contribs) 15:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The contents of that link fit perfectly. Since Shirky's TED Talk was entitled 'How Cognitive Surplus Will Change the World', maybe it would be an idea to entitle that section 'How Cognitive Has Changed the World' or something like that. I'm currently looking in to smart mobs and Howard Rheingold as you mentioned Kat, it would be a good idea to add more relevant theorists. Thanks also to whomever added the citation to my TED Talk analysis, that was much appreciated. LiamHagan94 (discuss • contribs) 15:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I really like that idea Liam. I'm just looking at how to word this section, and what are the most important things to talk about. I think I will focus on what Shirky's idea of change was and then give the example of the Malaysian aircraft. I will post on the wikibook a bit later on and you can see what you think. Kate Galbraith (discuss • contribs) 16:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting example about the Malaysian aircraft. I will go through it and add more references as well as fleshing out some more of the parts. Is there anything specific people would like me to write about as well? I can look up some definations as well. Katmcknight.nitx (discuss • contribs) 16:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm gathering a list of words for the glossary but there seems to be very little.. I was thinking of putting the words from the main concepts section and stuff, it would just be a more concise definitions in the glossary. Does that sounds okay? LittleLauraBeaton (discuss • contribs) 17:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just completed my section of Rheingold and how smart mobs link with the notion of cognitive surplus. Please feel free to edit it or ask me about any part of it if necessary. Your idea for the glossary sounds great, Laura. If I can help in any way just ask. LiamHagan94 (discuss • contribs) 17:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything up yet about the "wisdom of crowds" and Surowiecki so I'm going to research and add some about that in Collective Intelligence if nobody minds Fraser- Superdry T-shirt (discuss • contribs) 19:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Also Liam, that's fantastic what you've done on the TED talk. Only now managed to get on a computer so I may add a few things if I see anything. Fraser- Superdry T-shirt (discuss • contribs) 19:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds good... I'm doing the glossary so if there are any words you come across that could go in, let me know, please. LittleLauraBeaton (discuss • contribs) 19:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry guys big post coming up! In the middle of writing this and wanted to know if i'm going along the right lines? How Cognitive Surplus has Changed the World. As Clay Shirky focuses on in his TED talk, civic value or civic engagement is one of the most relevant aspects of Cognitive Surplus. Nowadays, with devices such as the internet, people are able to communicate faster and more often. The idea of sitting on a couch and watching TV all day is less appealing. More often than not, people are coming round to the idea of using their free time in a positive way, like raising awareness on social networking sites. Using the internet as a prime example, it is a simple enough tool to control Cognitive Surplus. The recent Malaysian MH370 Aircraft that went missing on the 8th of March 2014 caused major controversy all over the World. The article “Student posts ‘satellite’ image showing a jet over the jungle as thousands join online search for plane” written by Sam Webb and Richard Shears for the Mail Online proves Shirky’s point of Cognitive Surplus being used in a positive way. The article provides images of potential sightings of the plane and describes the search as an “online community”. Webb and Shears also explain that celebrities have taken to joining in the search and “offering up their suggestions”. Kate Galbraith (discuss • contribs) 19:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, do I link the article or is that something that needs to be referenced? Kate Galbraith (discuss • contribs) 19:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I have posted on the "How Cognitive Surplus has Changed the World" section. Let me know what you think of it and let me know how I need to reference it. Any help would be much appreciated! Kate Galbraith (discuss • contribs) 20:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you guys have a look at my piece on James Surowiecki and give me any pointers on referencing it please Fraser- Superdry T-shirt (discuss • contribs) 22:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"Not quite the idealist that Rheingold comes across as with his "smart mobs", Surowiecki too recognises that "groups are remarkably intelligent" and that even with a disparity in intelligence and knowledge progress can still be made. Shirky's idea of Cognitive Surplus can be seen to flow in tandem with Surowieckie's thoughts due to the fact that society as a group has no linear intelligence and knowledge. Societies knowledge is diverse and independent but much of it specialised. It is this diversity and independence that allows society to produce both "civic" and "communal" values at the same time. Surowiecki puts this down to the fact that "human beings are not perfectly designed decision makers". Therefore, producing two forms of values."Fraser- Superdry T-shirt (discuss • contribs) 22:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, where would you say is the best place for me to add it. Under Shirky, or Rheingold? Fraser- Superdry T-shirt (discuss • contribs) 22:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thats good Fraser! I would put it under Shirky cause you've talked about how Surowiecki's thoughts are similar to his. Kate Galbraith (discuss • contribs) 22:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Done the referencing. Think i've done it properly... Fraser- Superdry T-shirt (discuss • contribs) 09:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Liam. In the TED talk do you think we should mention what he says about us now going into an "age of generosity" as both "LOLcats" and Ushahidi are both intrinsically. As Shirky says we don't produce "civic" and "communal" values because our boss wants us to and we are forced to, but instead we do it because we enjoy it? I thought it was worth a wee mention. Also, the day care centre example is quite interesting as it raises the point that there are social constraints which possibly hinder us from producing "civic" values. Please tell me if I got that completely wrong… Fraser- Superdry T-shirt (discuss • contribs) 09:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Whoops. *Intrinsically good^ Fraser- Superdry T-shirt (discuss • contribs) 10:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a great idea. It would probably fit in best just before the final paragraph of what I wrote on the talk, but that's entirely up to you. LiamHagan94 (discuss • contribs) 10:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic! I'll get on that now. I won't need to reference it will I because you already have? Fraser- Superdry T-shirt (discuss • contribs) 10:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant. No, you shouldn't have to reference it because it's all based on the same thing. LiamHagan94 (discuss • contribs) 10:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm filling in a few more definations, do you guys think we should reference the definations? I'm not copying and pasting them from the dictionary or anything, but should they be referenced? Katmcknight.nitx (discuss • contribs) 13:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I dont think they need to be referenced if its your own words... and what ones are you defining.. cause thats what i am doing just now.. if we split them up we won't find a definition only to discover its been defined. LittleLauraBeaton (discuss • contribs) 13:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Since they haven't been done, I'll do Hive Mind and WEb 2.0 Katmcknight.nitx (discuss • contribs) 16:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm moving the part about copyright from the section on Terranova to the main concepts. (I said I'd do this yesterday, but I was waiting until someone gave me their opinion on this move, but I think it makes sense.) Katmcknight.nitx (discuss • contribs) 16:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

If you guys want to split the workload on the glossary and definitions give me a shout. Everything seems to be done elsewhere. Fraser- Superdry T-shirt (discuss • contribs) 18:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you not say to me earlier you had words to go in the glossary, Fraser? You could add those in a define them? Also, since everything seems to be done.. why dont we discuss what parts of the page will be relevant for our presentation? LittleLauraBeaton (discuss • contribs) 19:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking at what you've already done you've covered all the ones I talked about I think. I'll have another look and add any if i find them. Fraser- Superdry T-shirt (discuss • contribs) 19:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Good idea Laura. I think the majority should be focused on Shirky because it was really him who coined the phrase. We can use the TED talk in the presentation too to add a bit of relief for the rest of the class who i'm sure don't want to listen to us going on for the whole thing! Fraser- Superdry T-shirt (discuss • contribs) 19:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that's a good idea! Plus I would really rather not talk for the whole time, not a fan of presentations. We gonna use a powerpoint? Well actually hold on.. Greg says we take the seminar.. so lets start with what we think makes a good seminar? LittleLauraBeaton (discuss • contribs) 19:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Also... I'm gonna add a little bit to the introduction if you want to add more after that? Means you get to contribute more since you haven't really had the chance... LittleLauraBeaton (discuss • contribs) 19:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the page is looking pretty full. Thanks Laura and Kat for doing the definitions. I'm wondering if there is anything to add, but I can't find anything in particular from my notes or from the reading. I went through the 'Further Reading' suggestions from the Cognitive Surplus and Collective Intelligence lectures which Greg listed for something to add but it seems as if we and Team Alpha have took what is most relevant and went in to enough detail with it. I considered a new section on criticisms of CS, but I have only managed to find criticisms of the book, most of which focus on Shirky's writing style and idealism, and not on the idea of CS itself. If anyone has any suggestions of things they would like to add which they would like help with feel free to give me a shout. LiamHagan94 (discuss • contribs) 20:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, with regards to the presentation; I, for one, like the idea of a powerpoint presentation purely for the fact that it gives us a visual reference to keep us on track as well as helping to flesh out what we are saying for the rest of the class. Fraser, I agree that it should focus on Shirky; we could talk about the genesis of the idea, how he presents it (TED talk and the book) and what it means to us as media prosumers. (5 points to Ravenclaw for using the word from this weeks lecture.) We could also talk about the theorists we have mentioned as well as Kate's part about how CS has changed the world with some examples. Maybe we could mix it up with a variation of lecturing and class discussion/debate because you don't want to just babble on endlessly as much as you don't want to make the class do all of the work for us. We're week twelve so we have plenty of time to discuss it and make it the best possible presentation we can. LiamHagan94 (discuss • contribs) 20:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think its basically been covered. I looked for criticism too but i can't find anything! You'd have thought someone would have wrote something critical on it. I like your idea for the presentation, not too much talking on our part, but not too much free reign for the rest of the class too. I also like your positivity.. Our presentation will be the best! LittleLauraBeaton (discuss • contribs) 20:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Go team 'The Go Team'! Not to be confused with 'Go! Team' from another seminar class. LiamHagan94 (discuss • contribs) 20:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yay! I think we should all read over it once more just to make sure everything is spelled correctly and there's proper grammar and things! Katmcknight.nitx (discuss • contribs) 21:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Seen that there isn't any mention of David M Berry on "creative commons" so currently writing a piece on that now and will add and reference it shortly. Fraser- Superdry T-shirt (discuss • contribs) 10:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I was very confused writing this so please tell me if i'm wrong before I go posting it -  ===David M. Berry=== Berry has a pessimistic view of Lessig's idea that there should be a "free culture". He feels that it only labels culture as a "resource"(Berry,2006), and it can be easily controlled and owned at the expense of finding the ethical motives behind ownership. Berry argues that the Creative Commons may allow the sharing of culture resources but none of it is "shared in common, nor owned in common, nor accountable to the common itself"(2006). Therefore, it is down to private individuals to pick and choose when to reuse the commons when they so wish. In turn, blockages in creativity become a problem in the cases of lawyers due to the fact that they become mandatory passing points. This means that the "ethical implications" of the sharing of culture is now being restricted by legal barriers. Fraser- Superdry T-shirt (discuss • contribs) 11:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That's good! Ties in creative commons too! LittleLauraBeaton (discuss • contribs) 12:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with that at all. I hope you don't mind, I've added a brief synopsis of Berry just before your point. LiamHagan94 (discuss • contribs) 12:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all don't worry about it! Fraser- Superdry T-shirt (discuss • contribs) 13:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Laura, in the glossary how did you make the heading bold? I was gonna add in creative commons … "Creative Commons" - A none profit organisation with the purpose of enlarging the range of creative ideas available for others to have the ability to share and to expand upon in a legal manner. Fraser- Superdry T-shirt (discuss • contribs) 13:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Just highlight what you want to be in bold and press the wee B at the top of the text box. That's a good definition too! LittleLauraBeaton (discuss • contribs) 15:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

TeamAlphaDGM
I've made a section for TeamAlphaDGM here in case they want to discuss things with us on our discussion! Katmcknight.nitx (discuss • contribs) 16:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys, just to say that I'll move the theorists within collective intelligence to the main theorists section! Thanks for adding a section to your page for us. JenHale22 (discuss • contribs) 21:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you post on our page about giving you any words that should be in the glossary so thought I'd give you a couple. I'm doing motives and perhaps the words 'intrinsic' and 'extrinsic' could be in. Markconnor7 (discuss • contribs) 13:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that's great, thank you! If I don't define them properly feel free to edit them. LittleLauraBeaton (discuss • contribs) 13:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok just let me know when they're up and I'll have a look, thanks! Markconnor7 (discuss • contribs) 14:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)