User talk:Kurtismccallie95

This is the wiki discussion page for Kurtismccallie95 Kurtismccallie95 (discuss • contribs) 12:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC) This page is for educational purposes

Wiki Exercise 2: Visibility and Online Footprint

Online visibility can take many forms and is determined by the overall web presence of a user. A user may be consciously aware of just how visible they are online, but often enough many of us are oblivious to just how deep our online footprint actually is, and many of us are unaware of how much of the information we share with friends or even colleagues via different platforms, is under our own control.

Online I use Facebook, and check it several times a day, often to respond to messages or to read notifications. My visibility on Facebook will change from inactive to active when I choose to respond to messages. However, I can choose to appear offline whenever I please and respond to messages, meaning that I am largely in control of my Facebook visibility. That said, the social networking site has experienced several privacy issues since its inception in 2004, some regarding online visibility which you can read here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook. Not to go completely off topic but I think some of this information is relevant and it's addressed on this page which highlights some of the key criticisms regarding online privacy on Facebook. One of the criticisms I can sympathise with due to experiencing it myself is the inability to voluntarily terminate facebook accounts. Before the issue was resolved in 2010, Facebook only allowed users to deactivate their accounts, but not terminate them permanently. This meant that users had to manually delete potentially years worth of data from their social networking pages in order to appear inactive, meaning that many users would continue to be visible online with their data still largely intact.

More recently I discovered a page from a business directory http://www.192.com/businesses/ which revealed my name, post code and home address which I was completely unaware of. Startlingly enough, if anyone wanted to find me, they easily could. This is information that I was not only unaware of but it wasn't completely out of my control and available to anyone. I recently discovered an article on Business 192 titled "Britain's most invasive website?" which you can check out here http://www.alphr.com/blogs/2009/07/07/is-192com-britains-most-invasive-website. The article explains how we're always advised by security experts not to share detailed personal information about ourselves on websites and to proceed with caution when divuldging information regarding our whereabouts. Well this business is essentially doing that for you and then selling the details on for "as little as 35p per record". You might even want to look up your own name, you may be a little gobsmacked like I was.

My online presence as far as I'm aware is fairly normal, I share personal information from time to time with friends via Facebook messenger, I have a Soundcloud which I use an alias for and I am often reluctant to share private information with unfamiliar organizations unless I absolutely have to. But as I've addressed above, I am not entirely control of some of the information that is online about me, something that this assignment has actually made me aware of. Kurtismccallie95 (discuss • contribs) 15:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Kurtismccallie95 (discuss • contribs) 14:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 3: Information Overload!

The problem today regarding information overload often lies in the vast amount of available online mediums in which people can consume, distribute, and manipulate information. The internet has become this tremendously large social platform in which information accessibility and availability is overwhelmingly limitless, and with these endless possibilities of course comes the inevitable probability of distraction.

I personally dread not checking emails daily, in fear of allowing copious amounts of junk mail to accumulate in my mailbox, whether it's emails from Youtube suggesting videos that I should check out, or emails from 3rd parties I had no idea I'd signed up for, it can become quite stressful. These are examples of small distractions whereby information intrudes on our personal lives. These distractions often manifest from small distractions to everyday compulsions. Many of us feel compelled to check our emails; our twitter, our Facebook, otherwise we feel like we're missing out on pretty much everything that goes on online on a daily basis. According to an article titled "how to deal with information overload",(http://www.lifehack.org/articles/productivity/how-deal-with-information-overload.html)-which is the most straight to the point article I could actually find- a staggering 160 emails, 1,500 blog entries, 98,000 tweets, 694,445 Google searches and 695,000 Facebook status updates are posted all within 60 seconds online. Of course this is quite a vast, and for those who strive for simplicity (like myself) will no doubt struggle to keep up, but never do I completely disconnect myself from the internet; that's too much of a commitment. But what I actually do is prioritize, I separate my work-related emails from my social media subscriptions which relieves some of the stress. I do this through filtering and setting up separate email accounts. I also manage which blog posts I follow and closely outweigh the pros and cons of signing up to anything before actually signing up. This prevents me from being bombarded with nonsense on a daily basis; granted I still do receive an awful lot of nonsense which I often choose to ignore due to laziness. Kurtismccallie95 (discuss • contribs) 16:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account

The collaborative nature of the wiki process was not only engaging but surprisingly rewarding. The fact that each group participant had an assigned role within the project made it particularly encouraging in a way that motivated you to do better for your group let alone yourself. In other words, the collaborative nature of the wiki books project ultimately provided an incentive to not let anyone down. I believe that the intrinsic nature of collaboration in itself cannot be underestimated, something that is drilled into us throughout early years of education, and often lost throughout early adulthood in many respects. I think that the art (if you like) of collaboration is highly important in today’s society, and I think that it should be encouraged more often in schools. I think if more young adults got to grips with Wikipedia at an early age they'd be more inclined to use Wikipedia as a resource throughout their lives. It's a commonly held belief that young people are civic slackers and perhaps apathetic to a lot that goes on in the world. Though some would argue that this is merely a misconception and would argue that this is in fact not the case - or may very well be the case but all not only the young age demographic can be accused of this. Clay Shirky makes an important point about how we could invest our recreational time more wisely in order to become collaborators rather than just consumers. (e.g. TV addicts) In terms of the Cognitive Surplus, Wikipedia jumps out as the most extensive deployment of time invested more wisely. I believe that it's a resource which has the capacity to change the way we think about approaching tasks. This idea is already prevalent in today's social media landscape, whereby a platform has been established for the consumer in order to collaborate. This can be seen in social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, as well as Wikipedia as a resource for discussion. We are truly living in a generation where human beings are connected like never before. Kurtismccallie95 (discuss • contribs) 19:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

My group communicated through Wikipedia alone, we were of the mutual understanding that communication online was just as effective (if not more) effective than meeting in person. We also understood that just because we opted to refrain from meeting in person to evaluate each other’s contributions, did not excuse anyone from slacking off, so to speak. Overall I think that this system worked well, no area of the project was left neglected and it all appeared to read well. I wasn’t entirely sure why there wasn’t more face-to-face interaction; perhaps because there was simply no need to arrange formal meetings, the internet allowed the necessary means to communicate with one another. The wiki platform provided all the necessary tools to complete our project, there was really nothing that stood out as problematic. An understanding of how Wikipedia operates could be acquired from pages such as sandbox and the Teahouse for example. --Kurtismccallie95 (discuss • contribs) 16:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
There's an insufficient body of contributions to demonstrate an understanding of digital media and culture. There were repeated warnings through the semester that engagement is an important part of the assignment, and this cannot be doctored in last 24 hours. While there are some good sources in your contributions to the chapter, this is not reflected in your wiki exercises, which demonstrate a relatively superficial understanding of module topics with only cursory mentions of relevant secondary material.

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 deficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * discernible 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) 14:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)