User talk:Jdwharris

This is my Wikibooks page which I shall be using this semester as part of project work for a Digital Media and Culture module at University. I will be adding to this page throughout the semester as I continue to explore Wikibooks. Please feel free to comment. Jdwharris (discuss • contribs) 14:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: Educational Assignment
Foals Concert

On Friday 12th February, Foals brought their tour to the SSE Hydro in Glasgow. The support acts for this tour were Peace and Everything Everything.

This relates back to the Digital Media and Culture module because of the performance of the self being conducted by people in the audience. It is always interesting to see how different groups represent themselves in this kind of setting. Groups of teenagers posed for selfies on Snapchat throughout the night whilst older groups seemed to take more of an interest in taking photos of what was happening on-stage and just tagging themselves and their friends checking-in at the venue. By posting photographs on social media from concerts people have gone to, it gives a strong indication as to their tastes in music and culture and thus is a big part of self-representation.

Comments
I find it fascinating how different people react differently to social settings, such as concerts, and how they use these to represent themselves online. I believe that this ties back to the ‘pics or it didn’t happen’ culture – people use evidence of themselves at concerts to show people their tastes, style and personality. But with the development of this trend has also come an increase in concert venues and artists banning cameras and mobile phones. As well as preventing distracting camera flashes, this also allows people to enjoy the concert in the moment – something which is often missed when it is being viewed through a lens.

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 17:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jamie, this is a very good point and I think its interesting that people are more interested in making sure everyone knew they were at the concert rather than enjoying what they paid for. It really points to the fact that most people are now merging their online identity with their personal identity by showing off their taste in music and bands. Its shows a merging between the world of online and real life. Great Post! RyanMurray96 (discuss • contribs) 11:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

[Edits made to layout of comments section - new subheading] Jdwharris (discuss • contribs) 12:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
While it's encouraging that you have linked your review to themes in the module, it would be good to do this in a subtler way rather than using statements such as "This relates back to…". It is better to show how there is a link rather than tell us. The post could have been longer and included more wiki markup (in particular links and signing your posts with 4 tildes - it was difficult to figure out where your initial post ended and where the comments started) to expand upon what you discuss here. Your comments demonstrate engagement with colleagues' exercises. This could feature more critical reflection and thinking through how this links to module themes

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) 10:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Educational Exercise
In the current age, where social media is an imposing presence on everyday life, most people have accounts on at least one social media website. Personally, I have active accounts on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Slack, PlayStation Network, and Google+. To set up these accounts, personal information (including your email address, date of birth, phone number etc.) is required. Therefore it could be said that your privacy is very much out of your control on these sites given that you can't make an account without giving your details to these companies. However it is possible to set up privacy settings so that members of the general public cannot see specific personal information. This is a small consolation though as it is very easy for hackers to access millions of peoples' information, as proven by the hack of the PlayStation Network last year. The risk of this is even greater on websites with accounts that store your credit card details such as Amazon and the iTunes Store due to the fact that it could result in credit card fraud and identity theft.

By simply going on to my Facebook profile, anyone will be able to see my date of birth, mobile phone number, and email address, along with hundreds of personal photographs, my employment/educational history, as well as links to the profiles of all of my friends and family. This is probably the page where I share most personal information given that it asks for it. However I feel relatively safe putting it on there as it is only people with whom I am friends on Facebook that can access most of it. On Twitter, I tend to put up more opinionated posts but include less personal information given that it is a completely public account so anyone can see it. For that reason I feel pretty in control of my online presence, especially seeing as I never have personal conversations with strangers online (I've seen Catfish!).

The only slight annoyance is that by having my email address and phone number, these details can be sold on to third parties so I am now constantly spammed with messages and phone calls about claiming back on PPI and the like!

Do you agree with my stance on Internet safety? Please feel free to comment below.

Jdwharris (discuss • contribs) 14:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments
I think that you bring forward a lot of interesting reflections regarding online behaviour and what is safe and what is not. I remember when I was younger and used to have an account for a game website run by a media company in Sweden. There was the possibility of interacting with people while you were playing games online and I remember not really spending much time to think about what I was telling someone. I never gave out any information about myself or mentioned anything that my parents had told me not to tell a stranger. But there was still a lack of responsibility, I didn't really think about what I was doing that much. Now however, I think I have a lot more knowledge of the consequences and that means that I'm more careful with things as well. At the same time my social media profiles are very open to everyone, but I think more about what information I put on there. Though you brought up an interesting point in regard to how when you sign up you're usually asked to give out a lot of information that could be used, and even though it probably says in the terms and conditions what the information is for I know that I personally rarely read it.TrishEl (discuss • contribs) 23:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that it is very interesting the fact that despite social media having very personal details of yourself, like Facebook, you still manage to feel in control of your online footprint. Personally, I like to share as very little information I can in Facebook, because I simply do not enjoy being all that public about it, like for example, Facebook has been trying to get my phone number for a while but I've never actually given it, so for now, the personal details I have on Facebook are mostly my full name, my age, and a couple of personal pictures. Even despite this and despite the fact I have the security settings fixed to as private as they get, I personally still feel quite uncomfortable with this public display of personal information and the idea that it could potentially be accessed by whomever desired. --Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 11:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

[Edits made to layout of comments section - new subheading] Jdwharris (discuss • contribs) 12:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Educational Assignment
The World Wide Web is both a blessing and a curse. On one hand we have almost any information we could possibly need at our fingertips (which definitely comes in handy for essays and the like) but at the same time it offers up a whole world of possible distractions - from funny cat videos on YouTube to messaging people on Facebook.

One way of dealing with all these potential distractions is to download an application onto your computer which blocks you from accessing any other programs/software until a set time working on an essay or whatever other work it is that you are doing. However the problem with this is that it only blocks access to specific programs on one device, so if you have a phone, tablet or any other devices nearby then there is still the temptation to go on one of them instead of doing your work. For this reason a certain degree of willpower is obviously required. Personally I tend to find it easier to avoid temptation by getting coursework and revision done in the library or the study zone rather than at home as it then draws a distinct line between the times when you have to work and the times when you can watch stupid videos on YouTube and such like.

Another consideration to take when there is such an abundance of information out there is the reliability of the information on specific websites. As we're always told in school and university, we should never reference from Wikipedia because it is so readily edited randomly and could result in inaccurate or misinformed information. As a result, when finding sources for work I tend to look at online journals and books by scholars. Even on websites where these are linked to, they could be misinterpreted so it is often best not to quote from these directly. Looking for the most accurate information possible therefore guides how I deal with such an abundance of information. Jdwharris (discuss • contribs) 15:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments
You bring up some really interesting points! Unfortunately, I do all my work on my Ipad so I am not able to download applications to block certain programs. I find this distracts me even more as it is more difficult to avoid the temptation of a simple few clicks to enter another app running in the background. The idea that we are constantly networked/connected; in a state of permanent connectivity comes from Danah Boyd and I feel this relates to how I struggle with distractions online. There's always a wealth of information available and easily accessible, helping me with work but also acting as a distraction at the same time. Braydencoulman (discuss • contribs) 22:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

boyd, danah (2012) ‘Participating in the Always-On Culture’ in Mandiberg (ed.) The Social Media Reader. pp. 71-76 Braydencoulman (discuss • contribs) 22:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

We talked about similar points in our responses! I also mentioned the blocking applications and the need to assert willpower over the situation. The blocking mechanisms are interesting, however, if you start thinking about them closer. It sort of assumes social networks like Facebook, Twitter, etc., are almost an addiction, you know? And we're sort of feeding into that narrative by both asserting that one needs to have the 'willpower' to change their behavior. It's kind of a curious way to think about the desperate curiosity humans have, which make us almost need to try to parse through as much information as possible. When I was writing my essay, one article called 'Information Overload' a plague, which is sort of what we both seem to be implying with our responses. In a way, our accidental desire to get distracted on the internet is something we need an outside force to fix because humans don't always have the willpower to fix it on their own. You used the word "temptation", which is a very loaded word and a good choice. I also mentioned the credibility of specific sources - one always must be aware of that and it's a good way to guide academic research. Interesting post! I liked it. I'd be curious to hear what you have to say about my strange addiction theory. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 15:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I think you've brought a very interesting point by calling social media a 'distraction'! In my opinion, a lot of people would normally get offended and annoyed if, in a gathering, you make a comment on how often they are on their phone instead of just talking to someone there, or if you asked them to put their phone away, and would probably respond that 'its just for a second!' or 'its not a distraction!'. For instance, my friend, who is also studying film and media (quite ironic) finds it really really difficult to concentrate when watching a film, and cannot help herself but be on her phone throughout all of it. She is aware of this issue, and when she does catch herself doing it she tries her hardest to put it away, but because of the 'temptation' of her phone addiction, she usually just picks it up again 15 minutes later. It is actually quite funny to see her struggle. I think this and your post fits in nicely with danah boyd's concept of the 'Always-on' culture and the fact that we no longer feel like it is a 'social obligation' to keep checking on social media or other online platforms constantly, but it is rather an addiction of sorts for many people in our generation, one that we cannot help ourselves participating in, and therefore have to find ways (like the app you talk about) to control this addiction. --Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 11:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

[Edits made to layout of comments section - new subheading] Jdwharris (discuss • contribs) 12:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4
Whilst working on the ‘Technological and Cultural Determinism’ section of the An Internet of Everything? Wikibook, the group were largely successful in the collaborative nature of the project. In particular the team I was in (Team CERJA) were very good at also meeting face-to-face in order to share information and establish who needed to do what.

In order to establish which teams were to do what, we initially just had a general chat on the discussion page so that everyone could introduce their ideas and we could amalgamate them into different chapters so that there were enough different chapters for each team to have one to write. One thing that this truly highlighted though was that some people were having a greater input than others. This resulted in an imbalance of contributions which sometimes resulted in confusion further down the line when people who hadn’t regularly checked this page didn’t know exactly what the plan was. However, clearly some people had to be more organised otherwise nothing would have got done.

The section in the discussion page that proved particularly useful was the tips section where people put advice on functions in Wikibooks, such as how to add pictures. This mirrors Clay Shirky’s Cognitive Surplus and how it links in with Creative Commons given that individuals were given the opportunity to share their knowledge with others within this section in particular... for free! Theorists are often surprised by this willingness to share in a society that often emphasises individualism. However in this instance I feel like everyone was benefitting from people imparting knowledge given that we all had a shared responsibility to create an insightful and well-edited Wikibook. Shirky’s writing on the Ultimatum Game shows this as it explains why his ‘Public sector’ is so popular; it is designed to enrich society without any monetary incentive. In the ‘public sector’, digital networks connect people worldwide and give amateurs the opportunity to share their thoughts and work when they normally couldn’t, which is exactly what happened here.

Once we’d all established which teams were taking each section, we then went on to create individual discussion sections on the discussion page for each team so that people within each team could update each other on any changes made to their chapter (altering sub-headings, inserting pictures, editing text etc.). This allowed for it to be easier to meet face-to-face with my team as we could take notes on everything said in the meeting and then post them in our own discussion section to refer back to later on as we started to actually write our information in the Wikibook. Also this meant we could still get ‘contribs’ for work we did offline!

This all links in with the idea of The Civic Web which questions whether young people using the internet dumbs them down or makes them better citizens rather than just being a passive audience. In my opinion this can only be a good thing, as evidenced by the collaborative nature of this assignment and how generally successful it was. Jdwharris (discuss • contribs) 11:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments
As you discuss at the start of your post, I feel the offline element of the project was necessary in order to complete the Wikibook as my group and I were confused and intimidated by the wealth of content on our chapter when we first visited it. By meeting and having face-to-face discussions first, we were able to get to grips with the task at hand and discuss how we were going to approach our chapter and give our input. You mention about people giving a greater input than others, I also found this to be an issue as the Wikibook would have been easier to make and structure if there was a consistent and equal amount of time spent on it by everyone. This relates to civic participation and the fact that the project was to be completed in our own time is interesting as maybe if there was more devoted hours given to focus on the Wikibook, there may have been different results. I'm surprised to find out your chapter had a tips section as we didn't have that and looking back that would have been really useful as it was actually using Wikibooks and understanding Wiki mark-up that I found to be most difficult. That section seems to offer communal value whereas I had to research and discover how Wikibooks functions myself. Braydencoulman (discuss • contribs) 13:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with how important the face-to-face meetings did become in order for the project to be successful. I think it was essential for the groups to meet and establish an organised idea of what their plan was for their section of the chapter for the chapter to actually be created properly. But there’s definitely an issue with having to rely that much on offline interaction when it is supposed to be a project taking place online for the most part. Even though it was possible to show what had been said in the meetings on the Talk pages there is still a possibility that a lot more was said in the actual meetings that didn’t make it onto the online platform. The way you’ve applied Shirky’s ideas regarding the Civic Web to the project is very straightforward and clear, it’s rather obvious that what we were doing was sharing our ideas and knowledge in both how to create the chapter but also the information put into it. Personally for me I think that was the most useful part of it, learning how to use Wikibooks as a tool and seeing the different in-depth information people supplied to the project.TrishEl (discuss • contribs) 23:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you definitely were right that meeting in person rather than online was of huge importance, this is something that I wish I had personally done in my project more! It's good that you managed to get a balance between offline meetings and keeping up your online contributions though, I think it's quite a hard thing to balance! I think it's good how you use the idea of the civic web to apply to this project, and it's good to read about how you found in this instance it worked out successfully because this certainly wasn't the case for everyone! I think it's a general theme that people who were late to the project felt left behind and a bit confused by the structure set up by earlier people, this is something that happened in my group so it's interesting to see that your group experienced the same thing! Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 22:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
There's scarce level of engagement until right at the end when only a few things could be done. The assignment required a more sustained engagement and collaboration which is difficult to judge from your contributions. The exercises are more descriptive than critically reflective. The chapter contributions are better as you demonstrate some reading and tackling some important theories.

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 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 suggests minimally sufficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Acceptable engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Limited reflexivity and creativity, and a somewhat insecure management of discussion pages

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 14:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)