User talk:Gooblefly

This is my user discussion page, I'll be using it to register my progress on my Wikibook project and also to contribute towards academic assignments. Please feel free to comment. Gooblefly (discuss • contribs) 15:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: Educational Assignment
The video game Transistor was originally released May of 2014 by Californian developers Supergiant Games and for me has been something that has greatly interested me as of late in terms of design. Transistor is an science-fiction isometric RPG with tactical elements, focusing on a central character by the name of Red, a recently turned mute singer on the run from a shady organization by the name of The Camerata.

What interests me about Transistor specifically is the manner in which issues of voiceless-ness are approached and in many senses an idea of what it means to be part of an always on-line culture. Having lost her physical voice, Red' only means by which to warn people about the oncoming onslaught of The Camerata is through digital terminals scattered throughout the in game world, through which she types messages to be read by anyone willing. To add further intrigue to the matter, there are also issues of surveillance in play, as whenever a player activates one of these terminals a short cutscene will play out in which Red types a message only to censor herself from saying anything too condemning in case The Camerata are evesdropping.

Thematically, the game deals with some interesting issues in related to these concepts, but also it's interesting given that the game itself has never had a physical copy. Within the last few years, digital game sales has dominated the video game industry, with console games being much more expensive than digital counterparts. Furthermore, while previously console exclusive games were a common occurrence, the practice has become less popular meaning gamers are often finding the PC counterparts to their games are economically better.

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
You've made a good attempt to link Transistor with module themes such as always on culture, although these are relatively superficial. It would be useful in future exercises to engage not only with the themes but the main thinkers would have influenced this thinking. There's good use of wiki markup within the post, although you should make sure to sign your posts with 4 tildes. 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) 10:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2 Visibility and Online Footprint
I am very visible online, although very few people can really see the trail I've left. Through the many years that I've been sitting in front of a computer, I've used a large number of aliases, but even now having settled on the username Gooblefly for pretty much everything I use, there's a pretty large portion of myself on the internet. I've never really assigned to the concept of an online and offline persona, I'm more or less 'me' regardless of whether or not I'm a flesh and blood person or a series of pixels on a screen so having access to one of my usernames can provide people with a lot of information about myself. Entering my current username into google gives instant responses, linking people to my Twitter, Tumblr, Youtube Steam Profile and entering my actual name links to my Facebook but also with a little digging provides two of my other retired usernames.

I share a lot of information about myself. These days, I'm most active on my Youtube channel that I update every week with a short vlog about my life and in the past I've been very active on fan based forums and other such websites. It's very interesting to me that within fifteen minutes of googling usernames and clicking links, I managed to trace myself back to an inactive Neopets account from 2005 and if I didn't have this post to write up, I probably could have managed to go further. I've never been a fan of privacy settings and its evident now as I flick back through old retired accounts, I'm seeing a lot of posts about myself and about what I was doing in my life at certain points that are accessible to anyone who happens to stumble upon them.

Most of the information about me is accessible through my Youtube account, but that is a conscious decision on my part to record and publish those videos on a weekly basis, it's more daunting to think how much of my life is frozen in a strange stasis on the internet. It took me no time at all to find posts written by a ten year old me, and I have no doubts that I could find more information if I had the time to look. It is easy for me to regulate the information that I'm putting out, I can take down my vlogs at any point that I wish. It is a lot harder to completely disappear from the internet, with small flecks of myself scattered across the web which is honestly quite an unsettling thought. As an adult, I am careful about what information I share publicly on sites like Tumblr or Youtube, but as a child I don't know what sorts of things I carelessly typed. While I choose to share a lot of myself publicly, what concerns me isn't the fact that so much of me is accessible to anyone with a little knowledge of me and five minutes to spare, it's the fact that I don't know exactly how much of me is public given the vast number of dead accounts that are still hovering around somewhere.

Ultimately, I am a public person. I have no issues talking about myself either publicly or privately and I am not scared of the nameless, faceless internet. I am happy to share with whoever wants to listen and so my visibility by itself doesn't concern me. What does concern me is the footprint I've left, and the footprint I am leaving. If the information I've left from when I was ten is still lingering around, then the information I'm leaving now will still be around in ten years and I can't be sure that the me in the future would be as comfortable with what I say. Gooblefly (discuss • contribs) 13:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4
It is difficult to deny that the end result of the Wikibook project is a useful resource, with the wikibook itself being a very useful resource. The collaborative nature of websites such as Wikipedia and Wikibooks allows groups as vast as a university class to create something, similar to Gauntlett's ideas about Web 2.0 "harnessing collective abilities". However, I believe that the Wikibook project that we participated in does not accurately represent this collaborative process. Firstly, there are times in which collaborating with others performing the task is actually departmental to the produced content. When working to a deadline, should an issue arise it is second nature in a digital age to simply google a solution. This will provide us with reliable information within minutes and we can continue with our work. However, seeing as we are graded partially based on how we interacted with others, then it is more beneficial for us to sacrifice efficiency for grades, to write a simple question and wait for someone else looking for extra marks to come up with an answer. This is not accurately portraying the collaborative process as the collaboration taking place is artificial grade hunting. People on the wikibook project rarely ask or answer questions because they can't find the answers, but because they want to be seen 'collaborating'.

Furthermore, as a website, Wikipedia is not designed for the sort of collaboration that a project such as ours when talking about collaboration. Ask any student participating in University group work whether they would rather communicate through an instant messaging service or through a forum based website, and I would not be surprised if the majority preferred the prior. The Wikibooks collaboration page, while probably useful for long term collaboration, becomes cluttered and hard to navigate, especially during a rush to hit a deadline. In order to make a page tidy and easy to understand, some degree of computer literacy is required as formatting on the Wikibooks uses basic coding language and a failure to grasp that in the early stages of the project results in the contributions page of a chapter becoming a mess.

Lastly, there I noticed a sense of hierarchy when it came to the contributions system we were graded upon. On our chapter, Open Source and Proprietary Technologies, within a brief period of time someone had linked to a page that easily explained how to format the Wikibook project. While an incredibly useful resource that I took advantage of on a regular basis, such a link denies later contributions in a sense. After that link was shared, people stopped submitting questions on how to format the page as we now understood, which limited the amount that we could aid one another as the need for such questions was eradicated. While this would be fantastic in an everyday setting, in a project for which we are graded, a lack of questions means less chances for us to contribute which in turn results in a lower score. Ultimately, this means those with the time to find such links deny contributions for the rest of us which hinders our overall mark. Those with the ability to help others get more marks, those with the time to research outwith their own individual sections of the project get more marks. This does not grade us based on our abilities, but rather on our spare time. Those with more time on their hands have more time to watch the contribution page and the more time you watch the page, the more questions you are likely to be able to answer and therefore you will receive more marks for contribution. Sometimes it seemed important to add irrelevant, redundant comments to already answered questions along the lines of "Yes, that comment is correct", just to contribute for grades.

Ultimately, the book itself that was produced during the projects appears to be a useful resource. However, as a project, the Wikibook project is a farce. Collaborations are artificial and we are not graded on ability/understanding of material as much as we are graded on our ability to refresh a page and answer or ask questions, that are only being answered or asked so that people can get more grades. The website itself is a cluttered mess that is hard to understand and takes time that some do not have in order to understand. Gooblefly (discuss • contribs) 10:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments
I couldn't agree more! During the exercise of the Wikibooks project, I found myself in a strange position of an observer rather than a participant. People's contribution to the project was not motivated by spontaneity, or a sincere willingness to act or even a common goal in a form of a together written book but was motivated by achieving a better mark. Engagement in the project and its collabortive nature were misinterpreted by participants. Instead, most of us feel frustrated and discouraged. Katka.wicz (discuss • contribs) 20:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Gooblefly, This is a great representation of what the Wikibook project was like. I too agree with the aspect of when we get stuck we search to Google, although it is shocking how many websites don't always include reliable as how easy it is to put information online. I still believe that the collaboration between the wiki group members was in fact a good part of the creation due to people searching for information that others didn't think of. But at least this is a completely honest representation of the assignment we were given! Conrhyss (discuss • contribs) 04:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
We repeatedly stated that engagement was the single most important part of this assignment. Unfortunately, there is very little evidence of this in your Wikibooks contributions. You have failed to comment on peers' exercises and there is only limited evidence of collaboration with others on the chapter discussion page. There is little here that shows scholarly rigour (secondary reading of academic sources, analysis). Even though this assignment was outside of the traditional essay format, it still require a lot of the same attention and care.

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives a satisfactory brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a fair range of concepts associated with your subject, and an effort to deliver critical definitions. There is evidence that you draw from relevant literature and scholarship, however your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is slightly lost, perhaps due to a variable depth of understanding the subject matter or over reliance on rote learning. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a somewhat circumscribed range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of limited critical engagement with set material, although most ideas and procedures insecurely grasped
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material limited, displaying a qualified familiarity with a minimally sufficient range of relevant materials
 * Argument and analysis:
 * poorly articulated and supported argument;
 * lack of evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * lack 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 independent critical ability limited, due to the fact that your grasp of the analytical issues and concepts, although generally reasonable, is somewhat insecure.

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) 14:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)