User talk:Jackaodha

= Wiki Exercise 2 - Annotated Bibliography -Class Project=

Source: Marika Lüders & Edith Roth Gjevjon (2017). Being old in an always-on culture: Older people's perceptions and experiences of online communication, The Information Society, 33:2, 64-75.

Both Lüders and Gjevjon within this journal discuss the present issue regarding our elderly population and their use of media technologies. In a now ever-present Always-On Culture, there may be difficulty in integrating older generations towards these new daily practices of social media interaction. Lüders and Gjevjon discuss their study of a group of 24 elderly participants, detailing the group's exposures to online media. Within the article it outlines the research methods involved over the course of two years and its subsequent findings, concluding that the study shows that older people with a rich social life tend to have an easier time adapting to these emerging technologies. This article is of interest to my collaborative essay, the effects of an Always-On Culture is a massive and complex field of study, it is ideal to gain insights into all different types of people’s use of media technology and especially those who are not within this culture are important to research, over time we may lose this opportunity to study people who are not exposed to social media from birth, having this perspective helps us understand the effects. This article is possibly limiting in regard to its recruitment of elderly participants who had little or no experience with this technology, having elderly members who are particularly ‘tech-savvy’ and interviewing them would provide some insights. Ultimately this article is a step towards understanding the Always-on culture from a perspective that perhaps is often overlooked in regard to modern tech.

Comments
Hey,. I enjoyed reading your bibliography. It is very well written and structured, and I felt that the subject matter was very interesting. When studying Always-On Culture I never considered the effect that it has had on the elderly, partly because they are a group that is very rarely linked to studies relating to technology. I feel as if you are correct in saying that they are an important but vastly overlook group; especially due to them being among the last generation(s) that lived without the interference of technology for at least some of their lives. My elderly relatives would most likely fit into the group that was studied as their experience with tech is as limited as they can make it. They can all navigate to Google, Skype and Facebook but that is as far as they have gotten. Further studies into the online life of the elderly could be very interesting. Are you and your group planning on continuing to focus on more technologically ‘marginalised’ groups for your essay? If so would you be planning on trying to corroborate your own evidence through interviews etc? Even if not your choice to study a source linking to a group lacking full representation shows genuine interest in your chosen area of study. I look forward to seeing how your essay develops and grows.

LeKinibb (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words, I thought it would be an interesting element of Always-on Culture to look at, would you say that technology has definitely interfered in your life? do you feel like you are stuck in an Always-on culture?. what you say about your family is very true of my own, though skype would still be somewhat of a challenge to teach!. Sadly our group are not focusing on this element of Always-on Culture, we are looking at Transmediality, if we were looking at Always-on I reckon this would be a unique and interesting road to follow down though,I think interviews would be the best way to gain insight and maybe have some sessions involving them using tech. Regardless of us not focusing on this element it has at least given me a wider understanding of the topic at hand. There is some overlap too though that I can see, even if the connection is a stretch. My grandmother plays Farmville and other social media games on Facebook, this requires her to interact and chat to others online, this communal aspect of Facebook is similar to what we will be exploring in our collaborative essay, looking closely at fandoms and internet-based culture, for instance, I will be focusing on the concept of the meme. Here is our page, feel free to comment on it with your group! Click Here

Jackaodha (discuss • contribs) 00:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello again. I probably would say that technology has interfered with my life, at least a little: whether that is acting as if I am tethered to my smartphone like it is an extension to my arm; or a feeling that I am missing something if I choose to travel without my laptop. I do not think I am as stuck as I used to be but I do definitely still find myself compulsively and endlessly scrolling on twitter quite a lot, which is not so great. How about you? Do you feel as if you are trapped within the confines of the Always-On culture? Skype was a battle with some members of my family, one side even have a Google Home now! -Getting more advanced than me at this point.-

I agree that this particular area of Always-On would have been an interesting path to follow, especially since there are so many roads available to travel down with it.

The communal aspects of fandom and, as you are studying, memes is a very interesting topic. The intensity and rapid growth of some fandoms is sometimes unbelievable, for instance K-Pop fans seem to have hit a new peak in fandom recently. In terms of memes there is ridiculous variety within that particular internet subculture, despite it sometimes being a bit of a minefield. Do you have any memes you are thinking of focusing on in particular, like a favourite or classic? or are you considering a more “history of memes” type approach? I feel as if I used to be quite up to date with ‘meme-culture’ but have fallen off the rails a little recently, it seems like it would be a really interesting area to study.

Your group page looks as if it is starting to develop nicely, with lots of sources and such being dropped in and mentioned, I hope the two links that I have provided can help in some way.

LeKinibb (discuss • contribs) 12:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again for continuing this conversation I definitely feel that I too am stuck in my use of tech, I never leave the house without my phone, though of course there are many practical and reasonable reasons for doing so, though I do get an itch to check it very often, scrolling through Instagram, Facebook and Twitter, most of this is usually meaningless but provides entertainment. I like to think I know how much use of the internet is healthy but even if I am spending my time usefully, I tend to procrastinate unintentionally and find myself lost in some social media engagement.

I will be focusing on the 'Shrek' meme, which you are likely aware of since it 'blew up' online a few years ago and more meme content seems to be being made of it every day, if not, here is an article that will give a bit more insight. I will be looking at the act of something becoming a meme, defining what that is, and relaying the after effects of this change, positive or negative. These articles will help tremendously, the Forbes article might be of particular use to my teammate @JamesFDTD99 as he is covering, in his own words: "the real-life implications of the fan-driven sexualisation of the members of One Direction... This will then expand into wider discussion on fandom mentality". Obsessive fans and their action's consequences are of interesting study. especially how widespread it can be now over the web, there have been elements of fan mob mentality before the time of the internet and Digital Media with the famous Beatlemania here is even a video showing how obsessed fans can become without the aid of an Always-on Culture of connectivity, to see generally how fan dedication has developed over the internet is interesting, to say the least. Thank you for your positive comments about our group's page!, we hope to keep updating it and making it better than it is at the moment, lastly all the best with your groups detailing of the Always-On Culture. I look forward to seeing how it develops too. Jackaodha (discuss • contribs) 15:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 4
From using Wikibooks over the course of this semester it has opened my eyes to other possible applications and programs that individuals can use for collaborative projects. “Simply, Wikibooks is a collection of open-content textbooks” this definition does not quite define the full scope of what it is, to myself and others on the course we have seen it used as an educatory tool, a platform to which you have the ability to write projects such as a textbook or manual. It is not just a place to individually create these however it is a fully collaborative and customizable platform in which we can discuss amongst each other about anything related using our various Discussion pages. The collaborative aspect of the wiki definitely helped my team and other teams reach for a common goal to create a user generated textbook of digital media topics, I found that everyone I encountered on the wiki project was kind and very helpful. However, there were some issues, for example, within our group we would attempt to have near weekly meetings with each other if our timetables allowed for it. In these meetings we would go over everything we wanted to do with our page and what we have to do for our assignments, despite this being productive our face-to face discussion meant that when it came to our user discussion page of our Wikibook entry we had not covered everything we had always discussed as a group. Relaying everything said in multiple hour conversations proved difficult. Often as a group we would chat to each other online through the social media platform Facebook, this would be an informal general chat to talk about when we could meet up to work on the project and to help each other if we were troubleshooting anything, living n an Always-on culture of connectivity, this meant that due to our current usage of it in daily life it was a fast and direct way to get information across to people. The learning curve for Wikibooks I would say is its biggest let-down, while being fairly tech savvy. The first instance I took a look at the whole platform I was completely lost in a sea of text, through extensive reading of the course material and with experimentation I was able to overcome this issue, but I definitely believe that the UI is perhaps somewhat steep to learn and visually unappealing for many. I think the lack of individual feedback did really hurt this process, it was of course very unfortunate that for several reasons this was not possible and out of our control, we were all very supportive towards the reasons why. However, for instance there were several times I would post or compete and assignment on the wiki or the blog and I would not have a great grasp on what I had done well and what I had done completely wrong, this meant there was perhaps not much growth and more worry towards the outcome of the work. Despite all of this I believe that wikibooks used as a platform for a piece of academic work is useful. It stimulates a more formal growth of conversation, insight and knowledge that you would not find on other discussion boards on social media sites, namely platforms akin to reddit, ironically, I would have preferred to have taken more of the module in-person than online. Though my learning methods are perhaps a minority, I find that away from the distractions of everyday life and from the buzzing notifications from my online activities, being in a dedicated space for learning is my preferred, It was unfortunate that the lab workshops had to be cancelled because of conditions beyond ourselves. having direct feedback and sitting in a room troubleshooting every week would have made the collaborative and the discursive elements of this course better to grasp with Jackaodha (discuss • contribs) 11:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: DISCUSSION, ENGAGEMENT, CONTRIBS

 * Engagement on discussion pages of this standard attain the following grade descriptor for contribs. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this 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:
 * Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory contributions 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) and will have little justification for ideas offered on Discussion Pages. The wiki markup formatting will need some work.

Students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.


 * Although you may not have engaged every day, there is evience that it was sustained and meaningful across a large percentage of the project period. When you did engage, these seemed to be genuine contributions in terms of moving the project forward, and you communicated really well with other groups’ members who commented on your own essay’s Discussion Page.

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


 * Most contribs registered as being under 1000 characters, apart from a small number that could be classed as “substantial”, “significant” or, in one case “considerable”. And this wasn’t mere draft work either: some very useful content in here to register discussion and decision-making process.

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


 * There’s some engagement with other users, although more could have been done in this regard to give a full record of the group’s decision-making.

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


 * There is some evidence of this.

•	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.


 * You conducted yourself well. More engagement on other groups’ Discussion Pages (for example, reciprocating the other group’s efforts to engage you by creating a section for open discussion) would have aided this element considerably. That said, this isn’t a bad stab at this, and you put in some effort which is evident.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:21, 23 April 2018 (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.


 * 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 (especially for this, perhaps, the Understanding) criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets. Having said this, overall your posts and edits exhibit some interesting, reflective work, that really begins to engage the possibilities of the platform. Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have almost certainly improved your work, improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, if you became more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would have made a considerable difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, if a little brief on occasion. 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. This can all, of course be used to fuel ideas that might form part of your project work. I like that you have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion: this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about. There is also a fair amount of evidence that you are beginning to discuss 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). This suggests that you have some clear ideas around the civic element of wiki activities.

General:
 * Reading and research: there is some evidence of critical engagement with set materials, and also some evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material. But I do think that you ought to engage a bit more with debate in the literature relevant to your field of study. This would improve your marks substantially as well as help you to achieve the sort of marks that you clearly show potential for.


 * Argument and analysis: yours strongest aspects here were in the reflective and critical discussion of the platform itself.


 * Presentation: see above on use of wiki markup and organisational skills.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)