User talk:Hfk667

This is the user-talk page for Hfk667 (discuss • contribs).

Wiki Exercise #1: Educational Project
''Note: This is part of a university project for the University of Stirling, written by Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 15:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

A new development in my life has been the discovery of a Youtube channel/online phenomenon. The gaming channel is called Achievement Hunter, derived from the American independent film studio Rooster Teeth. They're based out of Austin, Texas and the videos are incredibly fun and entertaining. Check out the page(s) to see more information about them.

Why Watch Achievement Hunter?
Normally, I'd agree with people when they question the amusement gained by watching other people play video games. "Wouldn't you want to actually play the game?" most ask. It's extremely difficult to articulate just why these videos are so entertaining or what amusement I can derive from them, but I can say that it's not just me. According to the Rooster Teeth Business section on their official website, they have 16 million total subscribers, 38 million views per week, and 28 unique shows released weekly. They are a flourishing, popular production company. They have this to say:

"Rooster Teeth Productions is recognized as one of the world's leading innovators in the field of entertainment production. Over the past 11 years, we have built a global community of highly engaged and dedicated viewers. From podcasts and gameplay videos to one of the fastest growing consumer shows in the U.S., Rooster Teeth continues to become a main hub for community, gaming & entertainment."

- Rooster Teeth

The Achievement Hunter sub-company is also challenging the way people perceive media consumption. Their newest production, Let's Play Live!, managed to sell out tickets to see the Youtube 'Let's Plays' performed on stage in front of an audience. This merged comedy, media, and gaming into an immersive, live experience - the first one of it's kind.

Who Are Achievement Hunter?
The Achievement Hunter gamers focus on longer game play-throughs titled "Let's Plays" and shorter videos titled "Things to Do". They also post walkthroughs and achievement guides. They also release videos called "Off Topic", which are podcasts that features the people normally behind each video. They're funny, clever, and vastly entertaining. RoosterTeeth, their mother company, produces various Youtube videos, a small cartoon show called RWBY, and an incredibly LARGE production: Lazer Team. Lazer Team is crucial because this independently-produced science fiction film (by a production company based out of Texas and, until now, focused primarily on Youtube videos) grossed over one million dollars on their opening weekend. This new experience shows the power of smaller budget film companies to overturn the Hollywood hegemony in the USA. Check out the Lazer Team trailer and watch on Youtube Red (released Feb. 10th).

Personal Experience
I really enjoy watching the Achievement Hunter videos. They make me laugh and help me unwind from a long day. They introduce me to many great games and shows me that even grown men can cry like children when playing horror games like Slender or Five Nights at Freddies. The people who create the videos and "star" in them are comedians in their own right. The conversations that go on during the videos aren't just about the video games. The players talk about their lives, their friends, their families, etc., and through watching these videos somewhat regularly, you start getting connected with these people and wanting to know about how they're doing. All videos are available on Youtube as well through the channel.

Marker’s Comment

 * A very well-written entry, with some really excellent formatting in the markup, including neat and tidy sections, embedded links and clean citation format. There are some readings in the module outline lists that contain pieces on gamification and games culture which might have worked really well applied here - I was really impressed with the discussion you continued to have in the user comments. Really engaged.


 * A post of this standard roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor, although in the lower of the grade band because you wrote a post that was a little too lengthy:
 * Excellent. Among other things, these entries will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. They will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. They will address the assignment tasks in a thoughtful way. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts. They will be informed by serious reading and reflection, are likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.

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 seek to critically engage the module's themes and concerns, which is exactly the way to elicit responses and build engagement! Good work, keep this up!! GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 14:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments
Hey Hannah, this is a really interesting post. I totally agree with you, watching Let's Plays are really entertaining and they seem to have a huge fan base (the biggest German Youtube channel is Gronkh with nearly 4 million subscribers), so we are not alone with that! I really like to play games, but for certain game types (e.g. riddles) I am just not patient enough. Therefore it is really helpful, when you can watch someone playing the game, experience the beauty and story behind it without getting frustrated about it! Also I like the Let's Plays where a group of people play multiplayer games, because then watching the video really makes you feel crowded; they would compete, maybe joke and laugh. It is actually pretty interesting, that currently a lot of Youtube Channels, that were really successful, and which I would liked when I was younger, are now closing. The only format, that seems to survive all changes seem to be Let's Play. Why do you think this would be? I am curiously looking forward for your reply! - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 16:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm going to admit, I'm an Achievement Hunter purist and I don't like many other Let's Play channels, but I'll check out Gronkh for you! ;) ...Unless it's in German, which, in that case, I'll admire the gaming skills without understanding a word. Haha. I agree with you about watching puzzle games get solved in a Let's Play - sometimes, though, I'd rather turn to walkthroughs for that (a little less joking around and a little more explaining exactly what you're supposed to be doing). But they're similar enough in style. Let's Plays are great fun for horror games, as I mentioned a bit in my post - it's far more relieving to watch two other people play a cult game like Five Nights and get scared instead of actively getting scared myself. A lot of Youtube Channels are closing? I didn't know much about that - I'm only really on Youtube for Let's Plays and creative AMV's of shows and movies, of which I both watch and contribute. I think part of the reason some channels are closing is that Youtube is becoming severely monetized. I'll save the opinion-riddled rant for somewhere else (perhaps my Wikibook project), but in a nutshell, things like Youtube Red (the new subscription membership service on Youtube) and big companies (of which Rooster Teeth is one, despite my glowing review of them earlier) are making it harder and harder for the original creators on Youtube to continue enjoying themselves. Because of ads and the creation of the "Youtuber" (someone who gets paid to create content), the simple video-creator gets shoved to the side and forgotten about. People's videos don't get views and they stop producing. Especially young artists and filmmakers who rely on views to make a name for him/herself. I'm a good example of this, actually, without blowing my own horn. When I was little (about 13-14 years old), my friend and I made a bunch of videos when we figured out how to hack into the game-code of the Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets PC game. (Don't ask.) We had over one hundred thousand views on some of our videos -- two pre-teen kids with a camera. No editing required - we just filmed it and stuck it on Youtube and we had sixty followers and thousands of views. Now? Unless you work with some company, a hundred views is good. Five hundred is brilliant. A young preteen with a camera couldn't dream of getting a hundred thousand views (final count on our best video? 134,828). Youtube, like anything else, is changing with the Internet. I just hope some other platform like Vimeo steps up to help out the little guys. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 22:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting, as the most popular Youtube channel in Germany before was really criticized for being too professional and finally I think it was all this (building a channel as if it's a company, providing people with videos regularly) that brought them down. They said themselves, that they forgot how Youtube works, that everything there should be spontaneous and unplanned. Videos should have a "soul" and the creators should really put effort in it because they believe it, not because they have to upload a video due to a due date or because that's how their company works. It is a phenomena, that I honestly don't really understand. Because I thought, too, that although their videos were getting more and more professional, and I liked that, at the same time the content got worse for a reason, I can't even explain. And it gets even more interesting, as they built a whole Youtuber network with their company and were accused to exploit other Youtubers by making them following the same strategy, putting them under contracts, that were really bad, and finally not letting them get out of the network nor talk about "money". There was a huge discussion (unfortunately in German, so the link to it won't help you), but it basically questioned the whole concept of these "Youtube-companies" or Youtubers, that are working for money on it...- 21:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Hfk667! Rooster Teeth has been a favourite channel of mine for a couple of years now - I just love the sense of community the entire company emits with every project they are running; they really give off the impression of being a big family, despite the lack of blood relation, which I am a sucker for, if I'm honest. One of my favourite things about them was following the weekly updates and just hearing the friendships growing stronger and better by the video, especially when a new employee came into them. The casual, yet respectful, work environment seems so ideal to me - they all get along tremendously well and are all family to each other, yet you know that they also respect one another and have a mutual passion for the company and its projects. Their interactions with their fans are wonderful too; the fact that they bring members of their community into their convention to help keep things running smoothly shows just how much they care for their fans. Sadly, I haven't been watching them much at all recently and, to be honest, I'm not quite sure why. I used to be a huge fan of the podcasts, and when they transitioned into broadcasting the video as well I was quite thrilled to be able to put faces to voices and names; however, I think that transition has also hindered them, as it makes bringing unexpected guests into the mix a little complicated - something I used to enjoy about the audio podcasts from the conference room was that people could just come in and out, and the lineup was always changing. As I've said, I haven't been up to date with them for a while so maybe they've managed to work something out, but getting back into their videos after such a long time is almost intimidating, since there are so many and, personally, I would want to make sure I started where I left off and worked all the way through them. That being said, I will always respect them and know that they are a wonderful bunch of people who are hilariously charming and incredibly inspiring. Muir97 (discuss • contribs) 15:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You should totally give them a chance again! I fully agree with everything you said about family and community as involved in Rooster Teeth. They're such an incredibly close knit group and you can tell that they're really a great group of people. I watch the videos for the games, of course, but really I watch for the connections between the boys (and some girls who show up every once in a while, but let's be real, RT and AH is firmly a male-based business as much as I wish it wasn't). They have a great bond that make it so easy to enjoy listening to their conversations. They're also really great with fans - I'm hoping to attend RTX (the convention) when I go home this summer! It'd be my first time heading to Austin in general, let alone RTX, so we'll have to see how that goes. I can't give an alternate opinion about videos versus podcasts - I'm really a sucker for Achievement Hunter first and foremost so I never really listened to the RT podcasts. I know they're good and a lot of people like them, but I'm not as connected with the people on them. For that reason, I can't really make a comment about podcasts vs. videos. You may really like the new "Off Topic" Achievement Hunter podcast, though! It's a video-based chat session, basically, similar to the RT podcasts. They don't talk about games but instead just sit around in what looks like a pub, drink some pints, and laugh together. It's really entertaining and I watch them constantly. I fully agree - they are wonderful, charming, and inspiring. As a young video editor, I'd give my right arm to be able to join their ranks and help in any way that I can. Maybe someday! Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 18:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Assignment Group Members
Hiya, I hope I'm not too quick about this, but I made a list of all our group member's usernames, so it's easier to find each other. You can find it on Rosi's talk page. Have a nice evening -- Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 21:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks! That'll be really useful to coordinate our effort. Go Wookies! :D Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 21:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Online Footprint
''Post is open for comments! Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 11:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)''

Visibility Online
I figured the easiest way to show this was to make a graphic, charting my online usage. See below.

Analysis of Usage
Making this chart, I found it curious which social networking sites I display myself as "me", Hannah, and which social networking sites I hide behind a username. In class we discussed that profile pictures are an attempt to get the "right" picture, almost as a way of "branding yourself" to express one's "values and conventions". My profile picture on Facebook is me laughing in the Highlands - I need to convince people (even subconsciously) that I'm having a great time in Scotland. But my profile picture on Steam is me with a sword. Identifying me as a "gaming geek" to be taken seriously? Possibly.

The construction of my personal narrative changes from social network to social network. The narrative I construct about myself on Tumblr is entirely different than the narrative I create on Steam or on Facebook. All of those sites portray me from a different angle, attempting to almost sell myself to the type of people that engage with each platform. In some websites, I enjoy my anonymity. On there, I can be different and I enjoy the "empirical" nature of my identity. But on Facebook I take a much more "impressionistic" approach, attempting to represent myself in the best light. My presentation of self changes drastically from website to website.

Is my real life identity influenced by my media identity Or is my media identity influenced by my real life one? Or is it one big give-and-take?

Control/Privacy
After seeing the above graphic laid out in front of me, I decided to do a bit more research into the privacy settings of each and every one of these accounts. First, Facebook. How "private" are those security settings, really? After a quick refreshing of my security settings (all of which are set to 'friends only'), I decided to Google Facebook privacy -- and found something dangerous. Joan Goodchild, senior editor of Chief Security Officer Online says:

"There are all kinds of ways third parties can access information about you. For instance, you may not realize that, when you are playing the popular games on Facebook, such as FarmVille, or take those popular quizzes--every time you do that, you authorize an application to be downloaded to your profile that gives information to third parties about you that you have never signed off on."

Rarely do I think about the fact that the app continues to run in the background until you disable it, leeching information off of my account to sell to third-party servers.

Many of the sites I described above have my details open to the public - that's the point of them. Anyone can access your data - there's no privacy settings (or at least very few) on Tumblr, Youtube, Steam, Archive, my Achievement-Hunter login ... all those are meant to be public and open. Therefore, most of the data that's put on there is under the assumption that it will be viewed. But still, accounts can be hacked. Information can be stolen. Accounts are rarely fully in the user's control. If they were, there would be no way for the corporations to make money by selling information about your specific posts (gathered through third-party apps like Farmville) to companies, which use them to create targeted advertisements. Facebook itself makes over 7.8 billion dollars every year through this targeted advertising and makes the rest on third-party video games hosted on its servers.

Comments
I found your "Analysis of Usage" section very interesting. It is weird to think that even though all forms are social media are meant to represent us as one person, we can come across looking like multiple. For example my Facebook account and my Linkedin profile couldn't be more different. It reminds me of one of the readings we did in class, "Adrian Athique (2013) ‘My Personal Public’ in Digital Media and Society: An Introduction." Is having such a presence online helping us discover who we really are personally and professionally, or is it causing us to loose who we are in creating someone we want to be? Someone we want people to think we are.

"In everyday life, people consciously and unconsciously work to define the way they are perceived, hoping to engender positive impressions of themselves. This effort entails emphasizing certain characteristics, through dress, hairstyle, behavior and/or speech, while hiding or diminishing other characteristics perceived as flawed, depending on the context." Mendelson and Papachariss

Kacollins95 (discuss • contribs)


 * I mentioned that slightly in my post, but I really do agree with your question about revealing or creating ourselves. Are we revealing our real personality on social media, or are we creating a version of ourselves that isn't true? It's a strange concept that requires much thinking and probably a lot more psychological studies. It's extremely interesting if you consider anonymous profiles (Tumblr, Youtube, etc.) versus named profiles (Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) and how we present ourselves there - it's truely like we're crafting our own narrative instead of presenting ourselves as who we are in "real life". I mean, there's even text speak based on it! "IRL" or "In Real Life" - I see people saying this online all the time! "I love to go out and ride my bike irl!" --- so, an online world isn't real? Do you not like to ride your bike as the personality online? It's such a multilayered, multi-faceted concept. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 10:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload!!!
''Written and open for comments now! Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)''

Control. Information Overload isn't exactly what it sounds - yes, we're overwhelmed by the amount of data available to us with the click of a button. But Oliver Burkeman, a writer for The Guardian, argues that "the real problem isn't too much information: it's the feeling of being out of control". It's not the amount of information on the internet that's the problem, but rather the way we utilize it. Dealing with the internet is all about control and about organizing your own life.

There are many different ways to combat the urge to constantly be connected to the "distractions" of the Internet. Forbes gave it's 10 Steps to Conquer Information Overload and The Guardian offered it's own. Different extensions have been created to add to one's browser, like Inbox Pause for G-Mail or it's version of priority inbox, or note-taking apps like Evernote and OneDrive. The internet is even full of extensions and downloads that will shut down your ability to access distracting websites for an allotted time.

According to LifeHack - and most of the other sources - the first step towards combating information overload is to "decide whether you really need the information." This is where the concept of credibility comes into play (as well as a form of "self-policing"). In order to assert some control over the influx of information, we must be able to tell ourselves what is and isn't important to our topic (if it's academic) or our interests (if it's not). As Daniel Levitin, author of The Organized Mind: Thinking Straight in the Age of Information Overload, says, "we’ve created more information in the last 10 years than in all of human history". We need to learn what's a credible source and what isn't. If we cannot assert that form of control over our internet lives, then of course we will flounder.

It's hard to ignore the need to consume everything. Breaks to allow oneself to flip through the internet on a whim are critical - a human's curiosity can only be sated for so long. But at the end of the day, internet overload is a self-induced plague. If one focuses on a specific academic database - say JSTOR, Project Muse, etc. - than it would be a lot easier to find specific, relevant information without being overwhelmed and distracted by the multitudes of fluff from a basic Google search. When it comes to a non-academic project, you must do what it says on the tin (or in this case, the article) and try to force oneself to abandon websites that are irrelevant. And if you can't - well, that's where blockers and extensions come in.

Comments
Interesting read, particularly your first point about the lack of control being more problematic than the quantity of information. I feel that it is an important distinction to make, since the only way information can make sense is through human understanding. I was also interested by your point on how we can avoid getting distracted online. It is strange to think that people have designed optional apps and extensions to restrict our use of technology; software to prevent us using software. While they can be useful, at least in my own experience a lack of discipline cannot be remedied by something I have the option to turn off. I have a similar issue with my alarm clock. Lastly, thank you linking the Forbes article, I am already finding useful. -ReluctantCyborg (discuss • contribs) 18:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hah, I'm glad you found the Forbes article useful - I was surprised by it myself, to be honest. I agree with you when you say "the only way information can make sense is through human understanding" - we need to be able to understand the information we're being bombarded with and one of the articles I read (sadly, I forget which) had a quote about the fact that as humans, we only are able to understand a bit of what we read. Most of the rest is forgotten. If we're bombarded with too much information, we forget even more. So its only through self-control and the limiting of sources can we fully understand a few sources instead of just getting a cursory example of one of them. About the software, the good thing is that you CAN'T turn them off. I've used one once - it completely and utterly restricted my access to Facebook and other sites for the two hours I wanted it to. I couldn't do anything about it - even turning off my computer didn't help. It was possibly the most annoying thing I've ever downloaded, but it worked!! Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 20:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, as ReluctantCyborg already mentioned, you connected a lot of interesting factors concerning information overload that I was not aware of at first. Especially your point that “the real problem isn't too much information: it's the feeling of being out of control". Since I have read your argumentation, I always argued that it is a kind of evolutionary and socially driven urge (see my comment on ItsMartholomew page). Even if we have the urge to control us; I guess at the same time our mind will play off against itself. Based on my own experiences, I know how hard it is to self-control in the context of distractions. During my time working on something I try to switch to turn my phone to silent and do concentrate on one task. But after an hour, I just feel the urge to check my phone. That is somehow also a kind of control because I want to check if everything is alright and make sure that I am up to date. Every time this happened (even right now while I am writing my comment) I grow angry with myself. Being the reason that I throw away my concentration and have problems to manage to concentrate on it again. A really interesting survey by the King´s Collage reveals how our concentration as well as working behavior is suffered by those distractions (office-experiment). The picture shows what happens if we get distracted: it shows that, after a distraction, we need at least 25 minutes until we will start to revive with the work. It then lasts to 8 more minutes until we are on the same concentration level than before. Afterwards we will work just 11 minutes really focused and not being distracted by anything. Somehow that seems to be exaggerated but if you keep an eye on it, it´s to some extent true. So I have to be honest – my “control” is getting me into struggle a lot of times. Thanks for this really interesting post and that opened my eyes. --Esser.h (discuss • contribs) 15:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Those statistics you entered are fascinating! I know it took a long time to get refocused after being distracted, but 25 minutes seems stunning. And then another 8 minutes to get back on track - even that seems long. I think your comment really makes a lot of sense. And I mentioned in one of my comments that a phone or an internet connection feels sometimes like an addiction. We try to put it down, but like the need to smoke, it'll build up until we can't do anything else. For people our age, social media is a compulsion. It's been attached to our social mainframes now, if you think about it - if we're not "popular" on social media, we're not "popular" at all. We can't help but check our phones even if we don't want to and even if it's off. We love to think of ourselves as being able to ignore the pull of social media, but we're social animals by nature and of course we're going to want to be connected with people. Phone's facilitate that and our basic natures connect to it. So therefore it comes down not to limiting the amount of distraction but rather training ourselves to ignore it, like one tries to slowly wean themselves off of an addiction. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 16:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi-- I really enjoyed reading your input on Information Overload! I have to agree with you that lack of personal control is the biggest problem out there. With the ability to better control ourselves there wouldn't be as many problems. In my article I did mention this as well but in my research I had found a lot of information pointing to the fact that it may not entirely be our fault and it has to do with the reward system in the brain. But I digress, I want to focus on the notes you made about these "distraction blocking" apps and programs. I had no idea these even existed before reading your post actually, although I should not be surprised since there is an industry for everything nowadays. I think it is interesting if you think about the whole thing. First there came parental blocking software, where parents could keep their children form viewing obscene websites and language etc. Now it has evolved to almost a same technology but for us adults since it goes back to our issue of "control". It is quite good for those who are making money off of these software programs and apps but shouldn't there be a way for people to just learn how to focus? This is an intriguing problem in today's society. Emily boston (discuss • contribs) 02:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the same concept as telling people to just "learn how to stop smoking cigarettes", I think. People are evolving into having shorter attention spans due to the immediacy of information. It's much harder to just sit down and focus now - hence the reason control and focus is a skill that needs to be fostered instead of just something everyone could do. If people could avoid the pressures of the internet and the distractions of other sources/Facebook/etc., then there would be no need for those blocking websites. It's just a strange concept that I think really needs more thinking about - I hope someone does a study in their wikibook projects about psychology and how the brain can't seem to physically focus anymore. I remember reading my computer textbook in high school Computer Science and there was a section about Technological Addiction. I laughed about it then, but now....??? Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 10:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Reflection
This project started off great and ended up as chaotic.

Wikipedia, at its core, is a tool that has found great success among people who wish to use it for its intended purpose. However, Christopher Fuchs mentions the concept of a participatory democracy in his argument about how Wikipedia is similar to communism. In this, he mentions that democracy should extend outside of the realm of politics and into the workplace (economics). If I extend his argument, it should eventually combine with more creative/intellectual pursuits, such as Wikipedia. While describing what makes Wikipedia such a valid and productive work-space, he mentions three arguments that I think were the reason our project turned out messier than originally expected :


 * 1) . They derive pleasure from co-operative work and believe in the importance of what they are doing.
 * 2) . Wikipedians are able to work on whatever article they choose according to time resources and their own pleasure.
 * 3) . It is voluntary and not commodified.

Did People Derive Pleasure?
Some people derived pleasure and some people didn't. This created "free riders", or people who corrupt the process of collective intelligence by attempting to get away without doing their fair share of the work-load. What people understood as the reason for doing the work (a grade, common good, etc.) was not important - all that mattered to the group was that everyone accessed the document in time to share something. There was no true motivation. We got our first choice of article topic, yes, but it was a choice out of a slim number of options.

Time Resources
Wikipedia is supposed to be a project done on one's own time. Having to learn every trick of the trade in such a short period of time made Wikipedia challenging and stressful instead of fun and exciting. I'm glad I'm walking out of the project with these skills, but the attempt to communally craft something with a large group of people in such a short period of time removed any chance for a participatory democracy as presented by Fuchs. Instead, an immediate hierarchy formed with the people excited and ready to work on top and the aforementioned free riders at the bottom. The constraints on time and lack of knowledge of wiki-markup made it difficult to be creative in our presentation. Everything had to be learned fast and written faster.

Voluntary
Wikipedia is supposed to be voluntary. Getting a grade for contributions on a Wikibook took collective intelligence - as Lévy puts it, where everyone knows something but no one know everything - and turned it into a competition. The whole image Lévy presents of collective intelligence shared for the good of mankind was shattered for me as soon as I started subconsciously pitting myself up against people. The act of grading a Wikipedia made it commodified and therefore counteracted the idea that Wikipedia is voluntary and open.

There were other reasons our project was complicated and chaotic (lack of any form of "real-time coordination of intelligence" through a bad communication system was one large example), but these were the most important. In our project, we came into conflict with three of the integral pieces of Wikipedia. When they are kept in mind, collective intelligence and Fuch's participatory democracy must flourish. How else could Wikipedia be so big today?

Comments
Hi Hannah, this is a well structured post - I can really relate to your arguing, how the conflict with these three (in my opinion) core assets of Wikipedia/Wikibooks, turned the project into "chaos". I also think it is really interesting, how you mention, that competition appeared - in my post I did not named it like this, but I absolutely agree. One of Wikipedias (and many other collective intelligence platforms) core ideas is, that content does not belong to private, but public, that it is editable, that no one should be offended, if his/her content gets removed, changed or rewritten. Although, there has not been anyone, who was offended, that it happened in the end, everyone was afraid of it and afraid other people would "steal" their topic. However, although I think, that the setting of the project (the time restriction, the grading) put a shadow on the Wikibook experience, on the other hand I have to admit, that without it, many many people would not participate as much, as they did in the end (although there were still free riders, but we could ignore them, stating, it's their mark, that is going to torn down, if they do not participate). Looking at how many people still work on Wikibook after the project (none), just supports my opinion, that we lack of intrinsic motivation to work on this platform, so obviously our professor did not had any choice but to put extrinsic motivation patterns and put pressure by a deadline. Such a dilemma! - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 08:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

My dear ! You make really, really good points in your post. I love how you manage to structure my thoughts as well as your own in your piece! I should have maybe waited until you finished to "steal" your ideas (Is that within the ethicality of 'free' Wikibooks content? Anyway.) You make an extremely good point of creating not only the hierarchy I found so strenuous, but an actual type of competition, and I think you're right!

I had a lot of pleasure in the project when we started out and interacted mostly with those people who managed their time well and contributed in the early stages. However, as time moved on, and pressure increased, I found myself scrutinising others and looking at their contributions, not only because I am inherently nosy, but also to figure out how likely they are going to be a valued contributor to the project. The aspect of most people participating on a involuntary basis was what made most people inherently sceptical towards others. We weren't collaborating for the sake of a shared interest, but because we had to. A kind of a shared interest that developed was more of a 'side-effect'.

But on the other hand, maybe this was exactly the intention? Identifying those people who usually start their essays the night before as the 'weak links' of the project, and grading collaboration higher than content in order to re-educate people's mind set towards being more interactive? In this case, I'd be rather disappointed with our markers, though, as in Wikibooks everyone can identify those 'weak link'-people, and this type of public shaming is surely not the idea of the exercise.

However you twist and turn it, Wikibooks just doesn't seem right for the type of project we were attempting. It is just missing, as you mentioned, the crucial factor of voluntary engagement. And to pick up on SchrumpflinH: Rather than putting extrinsic motivation on students to work on Wikibooks, if our markers genuinely wanted to create a valuable collaborative project, there were several alternatives (starting with the fact that a group of up to 30 people can only produce quantity, and not quality). There was also the choice of a different platform which either requires less of the top-down pressure for people to contribute, or simply 'supports' unmotivated collaboration. This platform is certainly not Wikibooks. Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 22:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "quantity, and not quality" - this was totally my thought! When we started our project, I would loved to focus on only few topics, but with many people working on each (instead of one) to get out the best content possible. But as people were so competitive and had too many ideas, looking at our page, it is just too huge... - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 23:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I really like your approach of unpicking the values and principles of wikipedia to show why this project doesn't fit in. You're absolutely right! How can it be a wikimedia entry like any other if it is not voluntary? Also, the sense of contribution, as you rightly said, creates competition. But the thing i that our project was mainly graded for contributions, so we had to compete for who writes the most contributions and that is actually a very strange site of competition. It is almost like we were graded on who socially interacts more in the group, which creates a somehow asocial atmosphere I think. Even here I'm commenting because I have to. And I also found it sad that we we never came together as a group face to face, of course there were 26 of us, but I only know a few faces from my seminar. Well, generally I find that the exercise could have been a more social experience if we would have gotten together as a group and if our contributions wouldn't have been graded - on the other hand I wonder if I would have focused too much on the writing of my chapter rather than the group work, for the sake of my grade. It's sad and true, competition really destroys a harmonious social life. Rosane linde (discuss • contribs) 09:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you all liked it! :) To respond to all of you in a lump -- I fully agree with everything you said. It's a bit ridiculous, to be honest, to expect us to create something large and completely checked over when we had 30 people working. Collective intelligence only goes so far - in the end, humans are individual creatures and are sort of greedy... we tend to try to climb to the top instead of working together for no credit. 30 people, instead of lessening the workload, almost made the workload more as you felt you had to keep responding and engaging every time someone posted on the page. It went from a simple assignment ("create a Wikipedia page") to a massive debacle. Especially since I don't even know the name of some of the people in the group - I tended to just give people nicknames for their usernames after a while! ;) I just think, ultimately, the project could have been better if we had to do our own wikiposts like we had before. We would still learn mark-ups and collaborate with others, but that much communication wouldn't have been needed. It's much better that way, I think. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 13:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This was a really interesting post and I can definitely relate to how chaotic it ended up being! The same could be said of “free riders” in our group too, as even just the day before the final deadline there were still some sections that had gone pretty much unwritten. My team within this group tried to counteract this by meeting up face-to-face a couple of times in order to discuss any issues we were having with the project and to decide who should write what. This seemed to be particularly important as some comments seemed to get lost in the barrage of contributions on our discussion page so some people fell a bit behind. Clearly it would logistically have been a nightmare to get all of the group to meet up (it was difficult enough to find a time for five of us to meet!) but it definitely relieved some of the chaos on our part. The only problem with this was how to reflect our meetings as contribs on Wikibooks so we tried to counter this by posting minutes on the discussion page. One thing that I started to notice myself doing was comparing my contribs list to everyone else’s to make sure I wasn’t falling behind. The competitive nature of this assignment therefore detracted from Jenkins’ theory of Participatory Democracy as people were less interested in sharing useful ideas and more interested in bolstering their own contribs lists in order to get a higher grade. Jdwharris (discuss • contribs) 11:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
Main or sole author of a number of key interventions on the chapter page. Substantial, well-researched and critically engaged contributions to sections on the chapter page, making extensive use of the project period to develop ideas and engage debate. All edits are very well written, with interwiki and external links, cited scholarship and a wide range of sources both academic and topical used to inform discussion of concepts and phenomena, and you even had time in the closing hours of the project to add fixes and wikignoming activity. Very impressive work.

Wiki Exercises


 * Excellent. Among other things, these entries will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. They will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. They will address the assignment tasks in a thoughtful way. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts. They will be informed by serious reading and reflection, are likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives an outstanding brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is an excellent 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 an extremely wide range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, featuring discriminating command of a comprehensive  range of relevant materials and analyses
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material to an exemplary level
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument through considered judgement relating to key issues, concepts or procedures
 * exemplary evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position);
 * comprehensive evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections);
 * considerable evidence of independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content of an exemplary quality (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Excellent levels of engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of discussion pages using deployment of considered  judgement relating to key issues, concepts and procedures

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)