User talk:JacobTheOhioan

This is for educational assessment.

Wiki Exercise #1
No Man's Sky is a video game planned for release this year that has an ambition rarely matched by others in the same market. It sets itself apart in multiple ways, the boldest of which is its procedurally generated environment that is virtually infinite and composed of vast numbers of solar systems, each with its own system of planets. Every planet in every solar system can then in turn be explored to its entirety, providing unique landscapes, flora, and fauna on each that allow for untethered exploration, a key concept in this game. The vastness of this game space has never been matched by any predecessors, following an apparent trend of video game developers trying to expand on the open world concept and create environments of massive proportions to sate the gaming community's increasing appetite for exploration based games.

No Man's Sky is the first game of any sort capable of capturing the immenseness of the universe, allowing gamers for the first time a chance to toy with the concepts of deep space travel and the general unpredictability of an infinitely massive frontier that is governed by mathematical randomness. It signifies a shift in the gaming market from action and task based gaming to games that feature exploration and have no exact goals. Minecraft is another good example of such a game, and was one of the first and most successful games with no clear objective to break onto the mainstream market. It signifies a potential desire from consumers to be able to choose what it is they will do as they play, a dream made possible by rapid advancements in the video game sector. Gamers no longer necessarily want a game that is fast-paced and filled with action, but instead are now increasingly looking toward games that can continuously be played without the enjoyment of the game degrading over periods of time. The plot lines of certain video games are becoming more vague and without a concrete ending to allow for an increase in the length of playability of a game, with ones like No Man’s Sky and Minecraft lacking any definitive ending at all. At the core of this shift is the idea of freedom, being untethered from any influence on the choices made during game-play. This creates a wholly unique experience for each player while adding the exciting prospect that virtually anything could happen next.

JacobTheOhioan (discuss • contribs) 00:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Comment

 * This is a fairly well written piece, and the topic is certainly relevant to this module. It would have been useful to try to feed this into the themes and concerns of the module explicitly - citing material associated with, for example, game cultures and online communities, or a little later on in the module aspects of convergence (in this case gaming, educational games and the gamestudies journal). In addition drawing down from this material, you could have made better use of the wiki markup by embedding links to reading, such as I have done here.


 * 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.

RE: Comments on others’ work

 * These are absent. You have not adhered to the brief. Remember that your comments on other people's work is weighted as heavily as your own post when it comes to grades. Not completing this part of the exercise means that, effectively you are halving your mark. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 17:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I think its true to say that these new video games allow the player to experience a unique experience, whilst also getting to explore their own imagination to decide how they wish to proceed in the game. I definitely agree that more and more players desire the opportunity to be the ones in charge of how they play the game. I think that its possibly true too that being a part of such a switched on world as we are, gamers like the escape that these games offer. Clarenotdanni (discuss • contribs) 11:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It is true that video games are used as a form of escapism but I do not agree that this is always a good thing. It is also a way of procrastination and can take over someone's life just as social media can. Though video games can be useful to relieve stress it is important that technology doesn't take over Danninotclare (discuss • contribs) 12:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2 - Online Footprint
When I was younger and first beginning to truly enter realm of the internet and social media, I made a bit of a point of making sure that I didn’t get deeply involved in the various platforms of sharing, thinking it would be wiser to have only a Facebook for minimal connectivity so I did not get sucked in but still had a foot in the door. It was easy to do that at a younger age with a slightly simpler field of technology, but it was even easier to allow myself to be drawn in to the offerings of the internet as I grew up and began to develop a specific preference when it came to what I saw and did on the web. For instance, I eventually grew tired of Facebook, mainly word statuses of any length that quite often had (and still do have) absolutely nothing of any interest to myself. This led to my signing up for an Instagram account, thinking at the time that pictures were much better than sentences in that they didn’t feel quite so forced like statuses did, despite the fact that pictures are often a very staged moment in time. Of course, my preferences have further changed, but this has often been the driving process behind the development of my current use of the internet. I still use some image based platforms such as Instagram and Imgur, while I have maintained, albeit barely, a presence on Facebook and Twitter. I have also developed an enjoyment in online gaming, although my engagement with it comes and goes in phases. As is with many people, my online footprint is mainly made when I have time to kill; bus rides, boredom, and waiting are all reasons to pull out the phone, be it for the news or a simple laugh. The ability to fill the gaps with bits of news off of my phone is particularly useful in keeping me up to date with the events back at home in the states, which in turn allows me to feel connected. It also gives me the ability to learn new things about a wide variety of subjects, something that comes in handy often. I might need maps, or perhaps want to look something up out of curiosity, and the capacity that a cell phone has for these tasks is a vital part of my daily operations. JacobTheOhioan (discuss • contribs) 06:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3 - Information Overload
I have always thought of the massive amounts of information available in the twenty-first century as something of a godsend, giving large populations access to detailed information that can come in handy at any foreseeable moment. With a more critical approach in mind toward the bulk information that is available, I have come to accept the inevitable difficulty provided by such an entity for myself and the many other individuals who have been diagnosed as ADHD.

Webpages are filled with links, each one a doorway to new information and specifically designed to draw the attention and attract a click from the user. Accompanying many links nowadays, pictures and short videos say what words cannot and make a powerful tool for attracting a user's notice. When the user's focus is already having difficulty staying in one place, it becomes increasingly simple to get caught up in the many links that are provided. Because of my tendency to wander off of a train of thought, and the fact that this hasn't lessened any with age, I have to be careful of what I have open on my laptop when I need to do work or focus on a task. Avoiding certain webpages that I know will contain links I'll be tempted to click on is vital to my work process, but these webpages aren't always pages of recreation such as Facebook (which remains a leading platform with which I waste time).

Instead, I often struggle on Wikipedia with the phenomenon colloquially known as the wiki-hole. The wiki-hole is when a user is on a wiki page and finds an interesting link to a separate page, which then in turn leads the user to yet another link, until the user has either forgotten the original subject of interest or has spent a considerable amount of time on pages with little to do with the original page. Because this began to happen to me a fair amount in my youth, I was able to translate the idea over to Facebook and other places in the web, and then avoid these sites while doing my work as if they contained malware. Unfortunately, the usability of links has made them widespread enough to infect every site on the internet, paving way for piles of ads and suggested webpages to freely pursue the attention of those who stumble upon them, leaving those with one of a wide variety of disorders a vulnerable population to sly and potentially deceitful webpages.

JacobTheOhioan (discuss • contribs) 04:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I had never thought about how the internet and its overload of information would affect those who have a mental illness.Gackenback Von Stacklebery 2007:58 said " the inability to control impulse behaviours, thoughts or feelings and manifests online as people communicating in ways they would not ordinarily do online". If Stackleberys claims are true then it is very interesting to hear your perspective and how it effects you with ADHD. It's very impressive that you can get anything done.

Wiki Exercise #4 - Wikibook Project Reflection
The process of creating An Internet of Everything? provided an intriguing introduction to the editing system of Wikipedia, a system that I had previous mild interest in but didn’t feel bold enough to take part in. Wikipedia having already been around for 15 years, it maintains popularity as a very familiar format from a reader’s perspective, but the editing side of the webpages is daunting in its complexity to a user (such as myself) with little prior understanding of its inner workings. This jungle of links and formatting would be nearly impossible to untangle were it not for the talk/discussion pages and many other useful pages, for instance the sandbox and the Teahouse, that allow for interaction between new users and those who have more experience to foster a wider understanding of the editing process. The collaboration through these channels is wide reaching and has collected enough input from individual users to become a vast database in itself, which made them instrumental when I met a roadblock. For most of my questions there were already plenty of previous discussions that provided answers, a testament to the potential thoroughness of user based discussion pages.

In developing our specific section, we did not find much of a need to meet face to face, and only got together once to make sure everyone was up to speed on key concepts and then to divide the section up into parts so that we could carry on individually. With the discussion page in place, I would argue that collaboration without any face to face contact is as effective as meeting in person. Although talking person to person can provide clarity that is hard to achieve through online communication, the discussion pages allow for a virtually limitless space to discuss and debate the editing of an article and is more than efficient in collaboration. It was occasionally useful knowing in person the people you were working with, but any issues that were solved in person could easily have been sorted out on the discussion page as well. Of course, when in such large groups for each section, this type of format is liable to lead to a few people dominating the conversation and the direction that is taken by the team. It was easy to feel as though I had very little say in what I would be covering on the page, but at the same time this provided a quick structure to begin working on and was a decent system to begin with.

The efficiency of so many people working on an article was impressive in itself, and proved the quality and potential of user controlled editing. Certainly, the capacity of Wikipedia as a source of information is evidenced in its widespread use and made possible by its rigorous process of editing. The community that has grown around Wikipedia is one that has evolved into an entity that works for the advancement of knowledge and the ability of the average user to partake in the sharing of knowledge. It is given this ability by its anchorage in the idea that the content is public domain and can be edited, used, and distributed by anyone.

JacobTheOhioan (discuss • contribs) 04:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, just thought I’d make some comments on your reflexive piece. I too felt that the editing of Wikipedia/wikibooks was quite daunting as it felt more like computer programming that just typing some information. It’s also interesting that you feel that you didn’t need to meet with your group face to face, why did you feel that way? I personally didn’t ever interact with half of my group due to them not wanting to, and felt a face to face meeting or 3 would have helped a lot.

I think what you say about some people dominating the discussion is also true, but necessary as someone had to lead due to the groups being so big. You say that you feel the efficiency was impressive, but do you think this is because of these leaders, or that everyone was doing their part?

CwazyChris (discuss • contribs) 14:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I too found the editing and formatting process on Wikipedia confusing at the start. Although intriguing to learn it was not easy to pick up all the formatting I needed quickly enough to keep up with others who seemed more technologically savvy in the group. I also agree that the Tearoom and such were helpful in answering any questions that we might have had, the simplicity of communicating with other users on Wikipedia which definitely helps to create a sense of an online community on the site. However, I do not agree that only communicating on the discussion page was just as simple as meeting face to face. The constant uploading of everyone's differing opinions was extremely hard to keep up with and often I felt as though my ideas were not put across as clearly as they would have been if we were talking together. Clarenotdanni (discuss • contribs) 23:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you use accessible tools like the Tearoom and Sandbox. I wish that I had use these as I feel that we have had similar opinions on the project, but because I did not I have to disagree. I especially disagree with your statements concerning the discussion page. I found that having a page that only few checked did not show a reasonable example of a collective intelligence. I feel that it lead to some people only contributing to that page and not the actual wiki book. I found the entire project to be daunting and it discouraged me from joining in. GlasgowTexan (discuss • contribs) 09:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I also ran into similar issues regarding my competence in using Wikipedia (and its associated resources), and issues with its user-friendliness. I’m sure that with some time to adapt to the numerous inner-workings of the platform. I also found information helpful to me in user-generated  texts, illustrating the value of this type of project; I feel that these cumulative efforts are not necessarily any more or less effective, but the fact that it can be utilized and executed so well is a testament to the format. I also found that your point on the lack of need for actual, physical meet-ups may not be necessary. I entirely agree with the use of the discussion page and other communication methods, as I also found that the task could usually be organised via these means. I found too that the final product of this assignment proved, at least to some extent, that a cumulative effort can be am effective means of production. Blackflagdog (discuss • contribs) 07:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
You make two small, but fairly significant (in the scheme of the chapter) edits to the chapter content on Heilbroner and Postman. These are supported through secondary research and you include citations to the academic work referenced. You don't seem to be very involved in the project until a couple of days prior to the project period ending, so I think a bit more engagement would have been useful to enhance your contribution.

Wiki Exercises


 * 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.

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives a good brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a good 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 a good range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, although some ideas and procedures more securely grasped than others
 * evidence of independent reading of somewhat circumscribed range of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument featuring variable depth of understanding
 * satisfactory level of evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * satisfactory level 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 variable independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

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

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

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