User talk:Just...Urg Graham

My name is Graham Blair.

This is my Wikibooks user discussion page that I shall be using for my university project.

Please do contribute any thoughts that you have about my project below.

Just...Urg Graham (discuss • contribs) 14:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikibooks Exercise #1 - Pop Punk
As my first exercise for my Wikibooks class for University I have been told to write about something that I enjoy.

There are many things that I do enjoy, Pop Punk is one of the major ones that also links to my class, in the way that a certain social status and the community that is established through ones music taste.

Pop Punk originated in the 70s/80s with bands such as The Ramones and The Buzzcocks, starting as a sort of Emo Punk movement, pulling in many young people to form a new movement in the social spectrum of music. This spectrum moved from Emo (1990s) to more precise definitions as the genre progressed, such as sub-genre names (eg: Punks, Pop Punk Kids and Goths) as there are many sub-genres.

Many of the more contemporary Pop Punk bands such as The Story So Far and Neck Deep have more of a community cult following than certain bands like The Undertones in which, of course there still is a sort of community around them but not as strong as todays scene due to the technology that has been developed.

Many of the musical movements in Pop Punk are very much community based, rather than individual or cluster based because of the climate of the internet of today, keeping them relevant and socially active.

This is the first of many posts I shall make regarding my Wikibooks project here. Please feel free to discuss this below.

Just...Urg Graham (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading this! I really love how so many social groups, styles and fashion periods have been moulded by particular music genres and eras. As much as I love the sort of punk/rock movement that you've discussed above, I have to say my heart lies within the 80s. Not just the music (which is glorious, lets not lie) but also the fashion! Wouldn't it just be great if we could roam around wearing what they did in the 80's and have it be 'the norm' again? One thing, in relation to what you have pointed out above, which I guess is a sort of flaw in the 80s, is that I don't think it attracted or created a particular 'cult' or type of social group. It just sort of attracted an entire nation for that period. So, with that lack of an '80's styled social group', I guess it kind of makes its place in this generation through our parents and though the odd 'born in the wrong decade' kids like myself who just cant stop listening to The Pet shop Boys. Long live! 14buchananL (discuss • contribs) 21:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
You've clearly got the hang of wiki markup, which is good to see. The post offers an introduction to pop punk and offers relevant links, but then teases an interesting analysis of how pop punk bands are using social media to promote their music in a way that The Undertones do not. This claim needs evidence to support it (even if it's something as superficial as comparing follower counts within the relative constraints of this exercise) otherwise it appears as an generalisation. Your comment (remember you need to write 2, not 1) shows a basic engagement with your colleague's content, but this should also include a critical engagement where appropriate.

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) 10:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikibooks Exercise #2 - Online Visibility
This is the second Wikibooks exercise for my media course.

My online visibility definitely depends on the kind of message that I want to send out to people. For instance, my use of Snapchat is very non-chalant posting many pictures of my daily life just to be deleted 10 seconds later, the usual form for Snapchat for me is usually more of who I am because of the aspect of it that deletes the persona that you put out there, usually shared with just very close friends, almost like its a private diary that deletes itself. Now on the other hand there are apps like Facebook and Instagram on which there is another type of 'me' one that I want display my best qualities on, almost like a CV for people that don't know me. Although there is an element of Facebook and Instagram that seems a bit out of my control in a way, because the information is permanently out there for everyone to see, even if you alter your settings to 'suit you'. The sharing of this type of information alters peoples personalities because it is basically marketing yourself to the world, just like Tinder marketing yourself to suitors, you want to include your best bits.

There are so many things about information that people give out on the internet today that is very selective, because a standard has been set by the people that have been on the format for longer than you. What I'm getting at is the fact that the information that you share is based off of a persona, usually dictated by the format that you are posting it on, having next to no control over what people receive or take away.

Please do discuss below what you think of this article. --Just...Urg Graham (discuss • contribs) 14:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikibooks Exercise #3 - Information Overload!
This is an exercise for my university course about media culture.

The amount of information on the internet in the modern world is overwhelming, to the point that you may not be able to get any important work done because of the abundance. Many of the websites that hold this sort of 'information', or distracting information as i call it are sites such as Buzzfeed, Mashable and Imdb. All are used to dispense information globally, but at a surprisingly fast way that you could be distracted for hours. In fact, writing this Wikibooks entry has taken me a lot more time than I am proud of because of these sites. Other than that there are many websites that are useful for information that you need, such as Google Scholar and Sky News other websites that you can obtain information for yourself, with no direction.

I believe that a lot of people, including myself have come to deal with the sheer amount of information out there in a very active way, going to specific websites for certain information as well as trafficking regular sites that seem to be reliable for good information such as News websites and Journals. Although there are many websites that are not useful for good information such as Facebook and Tumblr. Although these are regularly trafficked websites by almost everyone that has a computer, they are used for more superficial things such as interacting with friends and looking at funny images for hours on end, making the information that they present to everyone varied and not entirely reliable. This makes these websites a lot more erratic in the amount of information that you could be able to take in and accept.

This leads on to my next point about the contributing factors for the decisions i make in dealing with the sheer amount of information on the internet. I believe that people should be active in obtaining information that they want to know about such as political news, facts about certain topics and even learning about subjects you don't know much about. Meaning that you should 'dig deeper' as it where for your information rather than taking it on face value from a website that you are not sure is reliable like TMZ or any gossip/circular magazine/platform. There has been many examples of celebrity deaths and theories that have been taken too far due to the lack of 'digging deeper' for information whether it being posted on Facebook by your aunt or you see it on a gossip website, people have obtained the idea of something happening, tell other people about it and so it snowballs such as the Jackie Chan Death Hoax and even more silly, the Olympic Poodle Clipping Hoax. This is why i police my information differently from many people online, due to many other people circulating miss-information such as this.

In conclusion, there are soo many ways to get information today than any other time in history. This means that the way you have to interpret information as well as receiving it must change. But this may be for the better due to the amount of information you could compile from the many sources out there that are reliable that we should not turn our backs on these possibilities. --Just...Urg Graham (discuss • contribs) 18:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I definitely agree that it is important to "dig-deeper" to find information that is actually factual and legitimate. I feel that in many cases the conspiracy theories that are created by users are not always intended for misleading or getting attention from the users. In many cases, the creators have been misinformed or mislead themselves. Sometimes it as simple as "they just haven't done their homework" but sometimes more complex forces affect it< such as religion or politics. I believe that unless the information you are receiving comes from an academic source, it is important to research it more in depth than just trusting someone's blog where it was posted. Even news sometimes can be unreliable. In the recent years, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the topics of journalism ethics. There have been found cases where photographs were altered and facts changed. However, with recent phone scandals by journalists, the topic of ethics has gained more importance in journalism studies. I also believe that with more people being educated, the information of the web still be growing but hopefully in a more objective and legitimate way. Toriettaaw (discuss • contribs) 10:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikibooks Exercise #4 - Reflective Account
The internet has always been a place to collaborate between creators, innovators and businessmen. There are many examples of this that have become world renowned sites such as HITrecord and LinkedIn to name a few. I shall be recalling my experiences with collaborating with my fellow classmates on this Wikibooks project this semester and how we collaborated ties into what we have learnt. There are many ways that i could relate my group working together on this project to Media Convergence, or the act of combining many media platforms to create one bigger work such as certain superhero movies that we so love today.

The sharing process offline between classmates was harder than any of us would have anticipated due to the many people being in the group, but also maybe not being available. The process of online sharing however was extremely easy, commenting on what we need to change and when we had time go and change or adapt what we needed for the project. In other words the collaborative nature of our group online very much changes the dynamic of how we got the work done and how many of the opinions of the other people in the group changed, maybe due to the every day politics that came with the creating of our articles, such as the participation of everyone towards the final product as well as the stances everyone might have had on the subject matter that they were covering, although this stretches more into the realm of small p-politics. A lot of these points also count into the Media Convergence terms of changing the context of the integration of the project.

The integration of the project, if we take an example from the Media Convergence lectures, is one of a horizontal nature. Taking from many places but also using many forms of media to create, as i've said before, one bigger work that reflects a certain product, opinion or piece that will ultimately be judged by the consumer. But aside from this the horizontal integration of the groups collaboration was very much implied due to the nature of what we were talking about. For example, i talked about the vast amount of opinion along with the information on the internet and how many countries could interpret this because of everyones backgrounds and how their lives were. This took many steps from the horizontal integration process from, user-generated content to enhanced/expanded/enriched content. For media convergence is vastly important to the creative process, explained here by Henry Jenkins: ‘The flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behaviour of media audiences who will go almost anywhere in search of the kinds of entertainment experiences they want.’ - (Jenkins, 2006)

A lot of the tasks that we have been set throughout this project have come down to the discussions that we have had in the past week about the Civic Web and how it combines the factors of the three types of politics (Politics, politics and politics of everyday) and, as i've said before we as a group definitely had to overcome many all of these categories of politics to complete the task that was given to us. All of the discussion points that we were given in the project stemmed from at least one, if not all of these branches of politics. For instance, security of online unlimated information, many talks of police involvement that extends into the realm of Politics. One example of this could be the Swatting incidents on Twitch TV becoming very much a Political act.

In conclusion the process of creating these articles has very much been more than a collaborative effort but rather a learning experience for all involved, due to the nature of Wikibooks as a whole and how we had to connect online and offline to reach the final piece of work. Many of the peer-review processes during the work have been extremely helpful due to the ultimately friendly and helpful nature of my classmates. On the whole the exercise has brought to light many collaborative knowledge-building experiences for everyone, i would assume and helped me especially to understand the importance of working as a team rather than alone.

--Just...Urg Graham (discuss • contribs) 15:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It really is interesting how the web can streamline a collaborative project. As you mentioned, it can be really difficult practically to arrange and engage in a personal meeting with your group members, so working on the project online definitely makes reaching the end goal of a completed Wiki Book far easier. However, I do feel that sometimes the prpject could have benefitted more from some personal discussion as in my particular page, there was very little regulation or administration of the group meaning that things quickly got a bit chaotic and some extensive editing was required to keep things on track.

Thedellboy (discuss • contribs) 13:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
Your exercises contain clear evidence of an understanding of aspects of digital media and culture with a range of good examples to draw upon, but this should be matched by further critical reflection and integration of scholarly research. While journalistic sources can be good for exposition, don't forget to tackle the academic content too. Your use of wiki markup becomes more adventurous as the exercises progress. This effort is not matched in the chapter, where there are relatively few signs of engagement, and your main contribution to the chapter was pasted in the wrong location, so has not ended up in the final version.

Content (weighted 20%)

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

Understanding (weighted 30%)

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

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content suggests somewhat deficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * lack of engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Lacking in reflexive and creative use of discussion pages

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 14:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)