User talk:Just improvise mate

This discussion page will be used in order to do a series of assignments required for a university module at the University of Stirling, Scotland.

Just improvise mate (discuss • contribs) 14:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Screen time survey
In this section a screen time survey is performed, which evaluates the amount of time I spend in front of the screen. In order to do this, a series of definitions and tasks shall be clarified as a prerequisite for this exercise.

First of all, the type of screens shall be divided into three main categories, namely the smartphone, laptop and the television. Secondly, it is necessary to define why one person would use these technologies. My main reason for using these devices stems from various reason, one being the fact that I am a tech savvy person and like to keep myself up to date with the latest technology trends. This is something that Everett Rogers looks at in his book The Diffusion of Innovations (2003), in which he explains that a person's decision whether to adopt a technology or not depends on his or her innovativeness. Secondly, I use these devices as they allow me to follow an always-on lifestyle. Danah Boyd explains this lifestyle as a state in which the person is always connected to the network, however he or she isn't necessarily using it all the time (Mandiberg, 2012). This is achieved through using the devices mentioned above.

Having identified the reason and the enabling devices of my time spent in front of the screen, I am now going to analyse how I usually spend my time in front of the screen. Danah Boyd explains that one of the main reasons people spend so much time in front of their screens is not because they are addicted to the devices themselves, but rather the fact that they can keep themselves up to date with events (Mandiberg, 2012). Considering this argument I am confident that the majority of the time I spend on my phone is because I like to stay informed about what happens in the world every day. On the other end of the spectrum, I use the smartphone and the laptop to stay connected. By connected I mean the concept defined by David Gauntlett (2018), who assumes that by creating things and sharing them with the world increases our engagement and connection with others. Going along the lines of this argument I am confident to say that this is the second main reason why I spend time in front of the screen.

When looking at the proportion of time spent on my laptop, smartphone and television, it would be the following:


 * Smartphone: 55%
 * Laptop: 40%
 * Television: 5%

Smartphones allow me to stay connected to the world using one hand, and I can carry it in my pocket. I spend time on my smartphone to connect with others and keep myself up to date on a daily basis. As of the laptop, my main uses include studying and entertainment. The main difference between my screen time in front of my laptop and my phone is the fact that when I use my laptop I don't necessarily aim to connect with others, but rather to educate myself or to entertain myself. Lastly, as I don't have a television, the 5% represents the amount of time I spend looking at my flatmate's television.

Just improvise mate (discuss • contribs) 22:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise 1

 * Posts of this standard roughly correspond 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:

Pass. Among other things, pass 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.


 * This work is at the lower end of this grade band, so there’s clearly room for improvement here. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to take a closer look at the assessment brief to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets.


 * Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this will make a considerable difference.

Detail:
 * Some good work in here. You are starting to apply relevant reading to the task at hand, which is a positive.
 * You really need to improve on some of the ways that you are using the reading materials, as this comes across as general and not too familiar with the work discussed e.g. you refer to danah boyd (please note the spelling with lower case) as "he or she". Why do you not know the gender of this writer? Her work features in some of the set reading and there is even an image of her included in the podcast material published on the VLE. It is details such as these that are crucial at this level.

General:
 * 'Reading and research': evidence of critical engagement with set materials; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material. Pass.


 * 'Argument and analysis': well-articulated and well-supported argument; evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position); evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections); evidence of independent critical ability. /Pass.


 * 'Presentation': good use of wiki markup and organisational skills. Marginal.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your discussion at Talk:Main Page
That does not belong there; it's only for discussion related to the Main page itself. Please use your userpages or the talk page of your book for such discussion. Thanks. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove messages, especially administrative notices like this, from your talk page. It reeks of hiding things. Thanks. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 07:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks please take note of Just Improvise's opening line in this discussion page - this particular assignment is an exercise in editing and posting using Wiki Text editor. As time progresses and project work starts to build hopefully you will get a more clear picture of how this fits in with the project book itself. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I am still learning the ins and outs of Wikibooks. My intention was to post on my page not on Talk:Main Page. Thanks. Just improvise mate (discuss • contribs) 08:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 2: Annotated Bibliography
S, N., & M, Y. (2018). The Integrated Media Effect: Rethinking the Effect of Media Use on Civic Participation in the Networked Digital Media Environment.American Behavioral Scientist.62(8), 1061-1078.

Description
In their research paper, Nah and Yamamoto (2018) examine the correlation between civic participation and integrated news in the networked digital media environment. After establishing a number of hypotheses, the researchers gathered data by using a national online panel of registered participants with Nielsen. Findings indicate that there is a positive correlation to news consumption when the media platforms are integrated for news consumption. They also found that integrated political discussion and integrated political information seeking mediate the relationship between integrated news consumption and civic participation. The limitations of this study include the cross-sectional nature of the data, as well as the fact that it doesn’t clearly represent the population, as it misses random selection. Finally, the paper didn’t explore the variation in the of connections to news sources. Therefore, the authors explain that future studies should not only focus on civic participation and media platforms, but on the connectedness among them as well. Although my research is more is more business oriented, this article still includes useful insight that might be used for the purpose of my research.

Just improvise mate (discuss • contribs) 23:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Movember


This section deals with Movember, a movement which aims to raise awareness of men's suicide and men's health in general. It is said that social movements are often the main facilitators of change in a society and encourages members of a society to see things in a new way (Goodwin & Jasper, 2014). In recent years the rise of social media and the continuously developing importance of an online presence have helped social movement leaders to connect to others and raise awareness of public opinion. Such movement is the one called Movember, which aims to raise awareness of men's health, both mental and physical. According to BBC, men's suicide rate is at its lowest since 1981, however it still counts for three-quarters of suicides in the UK. Therefore, movements like Movember are crucial in order to further lower the suicide rates of men.

Movember happens in November, where at the beginning of the month men shave, then they grow their moustache. They can also start their own pages on the official Movember website, on which they can raise funds which will be used in different institutions that are concerned with men's health. Movember started off in 2003 with two Australian friends, Travis Garone and Luke Slattery, who were pondering whether they could make the moustache back as a fashion trend. Their movement blew up after they created a website and started raising funds through it. This is a good example which highlights how modern day technology can provide a platform to raise the voices of social movements and their leaders. But further interaction on social media platforms, such as creating groups on Facebook, sharing posts relevant to a social movement or creating events, raising funds on social media are all major contributors to the success of a social movement (Harlow, 2011).

Today, Movember is known all around the world thanks to its ever increasing online presence. The charity raised over 6 million dollars in 2017 and continues to grow. Anyone who signs up to do Movember can create his own page which he can share on social media and encourage his friends and connections to donate for a good cause. This easy process helps Movember participants communicate their cause effectively and easily, and also to where people's attention is, namely social media and the internet. Movements like Movember that utilise the internet to gain attention are identified as a form of Social Movement 2.0. Foust and Hoyt (2018) provide a detailed analysis Social Movements 2.0, which entail all movements that utilise the world wide web as their primary source of communication and identity creation.

Just improvise mate (discuss • contribs) 09:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

What are Wikis?


The purpose of Wikipedia ‘‘is to benefit readers by acting as an, a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge’’(Wikipedia contributors, 2014g). Wikis are website which allow its users to create, share and edit content collaboratively. According to Weltevrede and Borra (2016), Wikis focus on "encyclopedianess", which essentially means being an encyclopedia. These website are guided by editorial guidelines in order to form an approach for knowledge generation and conflict handling that is to be followed by every member of the website.

Weltevrede and Borra (2016) add that one of the most important characteristics of Wikis is that they generate unstable knowledge. This is reflected in the fact that Wikipedia articles are never actually "finished" and locked for further editing, instead everyone can contribute to any articles as long as they have an account. The articles however, are monitored and moderated by admins, who are part of the editorial guidelines explained earlier. Wikis have very diverse cultures due to the fact that anyone with a WiFi connection can create an account and start contributing to the page.



Wikis can specialise in a specific topic. For instance, Wikibooks is a wiki-based online platform which aims to provide an encyclopedia of e-book and wiki generated books that are generated by users of the page (Wikipedia contributors). In other instances however, wikis can be based on a video game or any given topic. Nevertheless, it is important to highlight that Wikis are online communication and collaboration tools (Parker & Chao, 2007) which aims to enhance the learning process and encourage students to learn in a collaborative environment. When looking at Porter's definition of virtual communities (Porter, 2004), Wikis can be regarded as such, as the criteria set by Porter is adequately met by the nature of Wikis.

Finally, Wikis can be also regarded as information hubs where either one topic or a series of topic draw people together to collaborate and learn. They encourage the sharing and creating of information in an online environment through which virtual communities can emerge.

Instructor Comments
Hi Did you delete your essay page to start over? It's important that is aware of the context of this! GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi ! I left you a message regarding this issue on our essay's discussion page. I wanted to change the title but I messed up the link and was wondering if you could help us fix this issue as I am not sure how to do it! Thank you! Just improvise mate (discuss • contribs) 14:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi right so I think what's happened is that you deleted the link to the page! I didn't get your message - I suspect because once you deleted the link, the page and discussion disappears! This has never happened before in all the time I'be been running these exercises, so it's a bit of a surprise to say the least. Do you need me to see if I can revert it? GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 14:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
Posts of this standard roughly correspond 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:


 * Merit. Among other things, merit 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.

This work is at the lower end of this grade band, so although you have submitted some good work, there’s always room for improvement. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to take a closer look at the assessment brief to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets. Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this will make a considerable difference.

Detail:
 * Ex#2: this annotated bibliography is well written, useful, and reflective. Very relevant to the concerns of the module, as well as to your own research interests.
 * Ex#3: this is very well written indeed. You have chosen a very good case study as a vehicle to illustrate social movements more generally, as well as demonstrate your understanding of the social movements studies literature. This piece articulates your ideas and approaches in a straightforward and very accessible manner. Very good use of secondary sources here to support your argument, although there is a creeping tendency to rely on descriptive language, rather than a more analytical or critical framing. This is certainly something to be aware of and can be remedied in future assessments. Nice use of image to frame the text and help the reader to engage visually. Well done!
 * Ex#4: I really like the use of the animation in here as well as the WB logo. This works visually to tie the piece together and frame what would otherwise have been quite cumbersome text. You have understood many of the main underlying aspects of wiki in educational and learning contexts, and reflect upon these through drawing upon some set and independent reading to substantiate your points. This helps to strengthen your argument considerably. Some really good work here overall, which I’m sure you can be pleased about.

General:
 * 'Reading and research': evidence of critical engagement with set materials; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material. Merit..
 * 'Argument and analysis': well-articulated and well-supported argument; evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position); evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections); evidence of independent critical ability. Merit.
 * 'Presentation': good use of wiki markup and organisational skills. Merit.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on your contribs to Essay Discussion Page

 * Contributions to discussion of this standard roughly correspond 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:


 * 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. Your work is at the upper end of this grade band standard, so a real potential to improve in future work.

In addition, you were asked in the brief to address the following guidelines in terms of contribution, engagement and conduct, Here is an evaluation of those elements of your activity on the Essay Discussion Pages:

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

•	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 o	It is expected that you will make at least one contrib per day, for the duration of the project


 * Excellent. Very consistent engagement throughout the duration of the project. A large number of smaller, but very important edits made on both your own pages and on the pages of others (and a number of these falling just so slightly of the 1000 character mark, so we can say that these were crucial in adding quality and value to the discussion). Some of these were based around what you learned, and brought back into discussion and put into practice on the essay itself. Very good! This is crucial: it allowed you to get to know the platform, consider what KIND of platform the wiki is, and to make the most of its affordances. It also helped you to engage with the other students as more of a community. There are a smaller number of contributions that one might consider substantial (according to the above criteria as laid out in the assessment brief). Although it’s important to acknowledge that this is about quality of engagement much more than quantity, one would expect at least one or two of these more weighty contribs in there which would have made a positive difference to the essay and to the project overall – there aren’t any at the “significant” or “considerable” for example. But this is something that no doubt you can reflect upon and add into your other reflective assessment points.

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

•	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 	Merit.

•	Civility. Your conduct is a key component of any collaboration, especially in the context of an online knowledge-building community. For further information about this in a Wikimedia context, please go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars. Please respect others, as well as observe the rules for civility on wiki projects. All contribs are moderated. 	Excellent. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)