User talk:Kyra Paterson

This is my wikibooks user discussion page where I will be exploring wikibooks and registering my discussions on this page with regards to the media module. Please feel free to comment on my discussions. Kyra Paterson (discuss • contribs) 14:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1 (Educational Assignment).
A website which I use frequently and find interesting is the International Movie Database commonly referred to as 'IMDb'. This website is basically a search engine for films, T.V series, actors and many more. I find this website particularly interesting as it provides us with updates on recent film releases and news surrounding celebrities. Furthermore, the website allows room for a type of interaction as (just as with Wikipedia) we are able to add in summaries of a film or T.V shows plot and also trivial information regarding a specific project. Furthermore, actors or people involved in film production are able to create their own profile allowing them to gain recognition. I often find myself going directly to this site rather than other search engines such as Google when searching for a specific film or actor from a film. The IMDb is also useful for finding every category of film. These range from independent, to avant-garde, to new blockbuster hits. In relation to this weeks lecture it can be suggested that as the IMDb provides information on recent films, etc. our 'mode of engagement is consumption' (Gauntlett, 2011:184). This suggests that the recent development of certain websites is leading to fewer people 'creating' online. It could be argued that this is a positive development as the large amount of websites provide us with information on whatever you want to search or learn about. In a sense this helps us as individuals become more intelligent. For example, by using the IMDb to search for a specific film we are able to develop our knowledge with regards to people involved in a film (e.g director). The advertisement of new film releases also links in with the idea of consumption as we then go to the cinema to watch the film or we buy the DVD. The website also allows you to discover show times of specific films in cinemas nearest to your location. This then perpetuates the urge to view a film in which you are interested in and thus your engagement turns to consumption. On the IMDb homepage there are also links to its social network accounts, including Twitter and Instagram. This is an effective feature as we are then able to stay informed on film releases and news without having to visit the actual website. In addition, the IMDb also has an app which makes it easier to scroll through the websites latest posts. Kyra Paterson (discuss • contribs) 17:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Marker's Comments

 * A fairly well-written entry, albeit with some grammatical slips dotted throughout. It was useful that you related this to the themes and concerns of the module e.g. Gauntlett. What would have really been good, is to link via the markup system to the actual piece of reading, or to Gauntlett’s website. In addition, you could have embedded links further e.g. the imdb site etc.


 * 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
 * Comments on others' work were ok - a little more content and engagement necessary to pull the mark back up, however. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Good piece of work. I like how you have managed to connect the teachings in lectures to your own personal useage of the internet Lubo95 (discuss • contribs) 11:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 2 (Online Visibility)
It has only been in the past couple of years that I decided to create social network accounts. I guess the main reason for setting up these accounts was for social inclusion as most of my friends had them. With regards to my online footprint I have three main social network profiles; Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. My uses for each of these accounts also varies as Facebook is mostly used for contacting friends, family and acquaintances (particularly from university). Twitter and Instagram have different uses as I use these to keep up to date on latest celebrity news rather than for people I actually know. With regards to privatisation of my accounts, Facebook is the only profile I have privatised. This is due to the fact that Facebook holds the most amount of personal information. Having a private account results in there being little online visibility of my profile for ‘outsiders’ and strangers. Twitter and Instagram on the other hand are public profiles meaning anyone can view my page. The reason for this is due to these two profiles holding very little personal data: only a small caption at the top along with my profile picture.

With regards to my online footprint I feel mines is fairly low as I rarely post status updates or tweet. However, relating to Facebook I have discovered there are a large amount of photographs of myself which have been posted by friends and family. The use of the tag, share and like buttons results in many more people viewing recent photos I may have been tagged in. Thus increasing my visibility online as friends of friends are able to see theses posts.

By referring back to the second lecture it can be suggested that through Facebook and Instagram posts I create a narrative of my life. Pictures and status updates result in a build-up of information informing people about who I am. Furthermore, the frequent use of filters on Instagram results in my posts being inaccurate as the realism is taken away through the editing of colours, etc.

This idea then draws on ‘Impression Management’ which was looked at in week fours lecture and expanded on in Adrian Athique’s chapter in ‘Digital media: An Introduction’ (2013). Within the reading it mentioned Erving Goffman (1959) who proposed the idea of people using different personalities to suit a particular social context. I feel this is accurate in some respect as being friends with work colleagues on Facebook means I am more aware of the posts I make. Kyra Paterson (discuss • contribs) 20:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I think its interesting how you use different social media for specific things, with Facebook being the main representation of yourself. I much the same in this, using Twitter for news mostly and Facebook to talk to people. I hadn't considered the 'tagging' in Facebook, and think this may be a slight problem for many people who dont want to be overly visible online. Another thing to consider might be friends of friends on Facebook, and how someone you dont have as a friend, but your friend does, will be able to see comments that you put on any of your friends posts, and can interact with you through this, without any security.

I think like you said about Instagram being a inaccurate portrayal because of recolouring etc., Facebook is also fairly inaccurate (from my experience anyway) as although it is a narrative, it tends to only be the best parts of our days we show on social media, as we want our representation of ourselves to be perfect.

I also agree with having to self censor myself on Facebook due to work colleagues, family or others who may view me differently if I post inappropriate content. I think this is especially important now as more businesses view Facebook profiles when considering candidates for a job. CwazyChris (discuss • contribs) 11:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting point regarding the inaccuracy of facebook as very few people would want to expose people to every negative part of their day. Also relating to facebook comments, recently I have found strangers liking posts my friends are tagged in as their friends have seen it. I find this strange as this could suggest there is a flaw in the privacy of our profiles. Kyra Paterson (discuss • contribs) 15:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting piece, it is quite eye-opening actually to see so many peoples different perspectives of social media and their interactions with it. In regards to Instagram, would you say that the photographs that you post are inaccurate or is it the filters and effects themselves? On my own Instagram profile, I try to post only pictures that I think are "artistic" in the sense that they are photography as opposed to pictures with friends etc. Post-production is a big part of digital media, and although to a certain extent this can take away from its realism, it can also amplify it - making the photo look more like the actual scene itself. I consider my online identity to be pretty transparent (I don't actively hide anything) but would you say that because of the fact I use filters and effects in my photographs, that is essentially falsifying it? Banddcole (discuss • contribs) 11:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Banddcole this is a really interesting comment thank you. I would say that everything I post on Instagram and other networks is as realistic and true to my life as possible. Therefore my Instagram page is accurate however the filters are mainly used for the artistic aesthetic that you use for your page. After reading your comment I say that filters do not falsify information but they do provide a small part of inaccuracy but only to the overall colouring not necessarily the events that are being captured. Kyra Paterson (discuss • contribs) 12:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 3: Information Overload
The perpetual nature of website creations and increasing popularity of social networks results in there being an infinite amount of information available online. As the internet holds information of virtually any subject this creates a distraction which flows into everyday life. Being a university student I find this to be a major problem and annoyance as the continuous renewal of technology makes this information easily available particularly when trying to concentrate on work.

Regarding this idea of new technology continuously being produced I have found that having more technical devices results in there being more opportunities for the internet to distract me. The various types of technological devices also results in specific tasks being 'assigned' to particular ones.

After reading Sherry Turkle's work it was interesting to see that this distracting nature of the internet has bled into the generations as she mentions a seventy year old woman who checks her emails at the start and end of the day. This then reinforces the addictiveness of the internet.

In my opinion social networks are the most common form of distraction. This is not only due to the notifications I receive but is also from the wide range of information presented on the sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Opening the news feed on these sites opens up a portal to various forms of links (to websites) allowing us to dive deeper into the infinite amount of information the internet stores. This suggests the internet has a way of manipulating us into browsing more information as there are (in a sense) distractions within distractions.

My uses of all of these devices results in me being as danah boyd would say 'always-on' which is an interesting thought. Does this mean the internet is dominating our lives? I have found that placing my technological devices in a separate room is the most effective way for cutting off the possibility of distraction. However, the constant awareness of the location of these devices is always at the back of my mind. This shows the true power internet can hold over us as it becomes an addiction.

Kyra Paterson (discuss • contribs) 10:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference list:

Turkle, S. (2011), 'Alone Together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other', (134-149)

boyd,d. (2012), 'The Social Media Reader: Participating in the always-on culture', New York University Press, eds Mandiberg, M. (71-76)

Comments:

A good article.The internet has become both distraction and useful tool which is probably why we can't seem to live without it.Danah Boyd suggests we take time off our technology to restart ourselves, However, it can be hard to do that because everyone and everything around us revolve around the use of the internet.Which could explain your idea of us being addicted.we are addicted because we are dependent.Pamela.nx (discuss • contribs) 11:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think your analysis of the perpetual nature of incoming information though all of our devices is interesting. More than just receiving specific content through a specific source, the inclusionary social element of our internet culture is vital in how it becomes pervasive in our lives, possibly interrupting productivity or presence in the moment. The continual stream of social pseudo-gossip from friends and acquaintances is addictive. Even when you don’t care about the content of these people’s profiles, the experience of this covert voyeurism of scanning through a Facebook newsfeed has become something that can be seen in any pub across the world. I completely agree with your conclusion that the internet can be addictive, as something with this level of diversity and application is bound to have some negative consequences to their use. Blackflagdog (discuss • contribs) 12:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Pamela.nxThank you for your comment. A very interesting point regarding us being dependent on the internet, this is very true. Relating to boyd's suggestion (restarting ourselves), this would be very difficult particularly for us university students as the resources we need for courses are mostly online specifically for this module as the majority (if not all) of our work is posted online. Thus demonstrating your idea about humans being dependent on internet.

Blackflagdog Your comment has opened up an additional idea relating to your point on voyeurism through Facebook news feeds. It can be suggested that the 'old fashioned' value of getting to know someone through face-to-face communication is slowly fading out. Due to online profiles such as Facebook we are able to discover facts about someone's life before even meeting them in person. This is due to the ability to present our personal information online. Even through the privacy settings some people expose a lot more personal data than others (e.g. phone number/email) which I find to be quite strange. This then results in a large amount of personal information online. Kyra Paterson (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 4: Reflective Account
Prior to participating in the wikibooks project I was defined (as Banaji and Buckingham would say) a ‘civic slacker’. Participating and collaborating on the chapter of ‘Surveillance vs Sousveillance’ on the wikibook ‘An Internet of Everything’ was a big eye opener with regards to realising the potential of collective intelligence and the civic web.

After a shaky start to the project and the difficulty with navigating my way around the wiki page I found the overall project interesting as it introduced me to a new method of collaboration and learning. At first the collaboration within my group was an effective way for getting to explore the project and organise our research intentions. However, the collaboration between the chapters as a whole (at times) could be overbearing. The discussion between the combinations of groups could be intimidating particularly if I did not check the page one day as the next day would contain a whole new section of conversation. This is not a criticism towards wikibooks but towards my own laziness which provided me with a learning curve resulting in me using wikibooks every day in order to keep up to date. With this having been said there were a couple of issues and stressful moments when people waited until two days before the deadline to contribute resulting in us having to make last minute adjustments.

Relating back to the collaboration within my group we planned on meeting face-to-face but unfortunately conflicting schedules resulted in us only ever talking on the discussion page. Even though it would have been useful to meet in person, the discussion page was an effective tool to combat this issue. The wikibooks discussion section was also useful as it allowed us to discuss any issues or ideas we each had, and also allowed other groups to see our conversation and contribute to particular topics or areas we needed help in. This was particularly effective when figuring out how to use certain features of the page as fellow students were able to help out. Additionally I found the ability to edit everyone’s work very useful as we were then able to correct any mistakes that may have been missed first time round. Therefore resulting in our collective intelligence producing a substantial piece of intellectual work.

This whole wikibooks exercise relates to Banaji and Buckingham (2013) who discuss ‘The Civic Web’ which they define as discussing a range of issues surrounding politics and social topics with friends, family and colleagues in face-to-face time and online through social media and various other websites. Their work provides an interesting insight into the civic web and the relationship between young people and the internet. It was particularly interesting to find that a large number of young people use the internet for civic interest relating to various topics including religion and politics. Overall I found it remarkable that there is such a vast number of people participating in civic web whether it be for ‘politics’ or ‘Politics.’ Moreover, politics of the everyday can be applied to the wikibooks assignment due to the creative nature of the project.

Overall, as annoying as the Wikibooks project was (at times), it has opened my eyes to a whole new way of learning and collaborating within a group. Kyra Paterson (discuss • contribs) 20:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Hey This is a very interesting article on your self analysis in this project. You are totally honest and talk about the difficulties you have had in this project. This idea of the civic web can be really hard to grasp as it can be interpreted in many different ways. one of the main points made is the idea of young people are either civic activist or civic slacker. You confessed at the start that you were the latter. Do you think your role has changed or are you still the same? What about the rest of your group, would you describe the as slackers or activists? as you state there are definitely some stressful parts of this project especially when using Wikibooks as your main form of communication. In hindsight would you of preferred more offline and face to face communication? or would you of preferred a smaller chapter group which could be easier to organize and co-ordinate. Great work on your project, I read your chapter and it was extremely insightful RyanMurray96 (discuss • contribs) 19:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I really like the way you took a sel analytical approach to your reflective. I totally see where you are coming with when you mention constant changes. It's a hard thing to overcome especially knowing that somedays you will be far too busy to check the page out so when you do look you get lost easily. Another problem I had found was taking time out to write up a section to then go back on the page to find someone had already wrote one out and put it down before I had the chance to. The slip in communication made this frustrating and I agree with you when at the start you said you were a civi slacker I was too and I don't feel like that's going to change for me! You ended on a really positive note about how it's opened your eyes to a new thing, would you consider doing this project again if you had the chance to? Especially now knowing exactly when you are getting yourself into. Thegirlwiththebluehair (discuss • contribs) 06:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, RyanMurray96 thanks for commenting. I would say that after the stress and annoyance of the wikibooks project I have returned to being a civic slacker however this may change in the future particularly if I were to participate in a topic I am interested in. I would say that my sub-group were all active whereas certain people from the larger chapter group could be deemed 'slackers' specifically those who waited until last minute to contribute. I think it would have been useful to meet my group face-to-face just to provide us with more chance of going into detail of what we actually had to do and ideas we each had. With this having been said I also believe a smaller chapter group may have made to process a little easier or if there was a better way of structuring the whole chapter (particularly when people wrote similar articles).

Hey, Thegirlwiththebluehair thanks for commenting. I have to agree with you about going back to being a 'civic slacker' and I can imagine a large amount of people will also especially since everyone I have spoken to has criticised and hated the project. However, after doing the project and knowing how much workload is expected and needed I would do the project again. I think it would have been a lot better/easier if it were on a subject in which I was really interested in, but as the majority of people had no idea what 'sousveillance' was this made it difficult to distinguish a structure or topics to focus on. Would you consider doing this project again? Kyra Paterson (discuss • contribs) 09:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey I don't know if I'd go back and do it again! I agree an interesting topic would have made things so much easier but it's still a lot of work load. For me in order to make it work it would have to be when nothing else was due so that I could focus completely on research and commenting so that I could feel completely on top of be work. Thegirlwiththebluehair (discuss • contribs) 13:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey I can relate to your comment about not knowing how to navigate the whole thing and having a shaky start.I found the project to be trialing when it came to trying to collaborate with my own group members offline but I was able to channel that frustration into contributbutions online.considering surveillance/sousveillance was one of the pages that was trailing behind the others.I do believe that collaboration assisted in this way.If it was not for the larger group coming togethor to push the project along,I am not sure we would've completed it.However,I do think that personally I would have done the project alot faster with much less confusion if it were an individual task.Pamela.nx (discuss • contribs) 16:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
You show a good level of on-going engagement with peers when not entirely necessary, particularly in responding to their comments on your exercises. There is evidence of sustained contributionss and engagement on the project page too. Your exercises tie together personal reflection with critical engagement with secondary material. The chapter contributions on sousveillance show a clear engagement with critical frameworks that were likely unfamiliar beforehand.

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, clearly grounded on close familiarity with concepts and ideas encountered on the module
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material through evidence of close familiarity with a wide range of evidence
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument featuring appreciable depth of understanding
 * good level of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * good 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 appreciable independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

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

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

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