User talk:Lilygeorgia96

This is the user discussion page for Lilygeorgia96. I will be using this to register my work for the WikiBooks project and also to discuss work for academic purposes. Feel free to comment on this page.

Wiki Exercise 1: Educational Assignment
Casey Neistat, filmmaker and YouTube vlogger, recently made a video entitled "Snowboarding with the NYPD"which to this date has over twelve million views on YouTube alone and was shared on social media platforms and shown on news programmes worldwide- a viral smash hit. The video follows Neistat and his friends as they make the most of the blizzard that hit the East Coast of America a few weeks ago by snowboarding the shut-down streets, towed by a truck and filmed via handheld camera and a drone. Not only is the short video, set to Frank Sinatra's 'New York, New York', absolutely ridiculous, original, and highly entertaining in its own right, the reason I personally find it so interesting is that it is the first 'viral' video that I have seen the preparation for and reaction to as well the video itself. It is so common to see a video doing the rounds online, to watch it, maybe share it, and forget it almost straight away, without consideration for what went into the making of it, without even knowing the names of the people behind it. And maybe that will be their only hit video, maybe it will be their only video at all that they upload, something funny or extraordinary that they happened to catch on camera and share. But the fact that Neistat shares his life publicly in daily vlogs and has a large, growing following means that this was no accident, no one-off. It is unusual and very interesting to see him predict the potential success of the video the day before he shot it, as at is clear to see he knows the formula for these things- as he puts it, "shareability" and the "feel-good factor". Knowing the context of these kinds of videos, which may otherwise be easily thrown away, seems special because of the person behind them in any instance. Of course, eight minute long videos can in no way be seen to be representative of a full twenty-four hours of someone's life but it is interesting to me that the public persona (linked with the idea of the performance of self) portrayed by Neistat always lends itself to a neat story arc, something he makes a point of with all of his videos. Seeing and feeling connected with the person behind a viral video is a strange idea since it is such a limited part of his life which is made public, yet for his viewers it is enough. Please let me know what you think on this topic, about viral videos and vloggers, and how much you can really tell about someone's life from what they choose to share. I think this is also a good example of how, once something of this sort is published, the creator has little control over who, how many millions, might see it, and the impact this can have for someone's reputation or career online. Lilygeorgia96 (discuss • contribs) 22:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Comment

 * This is a really well put together post with external links included and some salient points made regarding themes on the module. I think that the critical links could have been made more explicit however - relating to always-on culture, viral material relies upon semi-permanent states of connectivity, as well as convergent media (more of which, later in the module).


 * A post of this standard roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor:
 * Good. Among other things, good 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.

RE: Comments on others’ work

 * These are on time and ok - lots of content, scope and reference to module themes is there, even though I think this could be made more explicit. Remember that your comments on other people's work is weighted as heavily as your own post when it comes to grades - I think that you could have made more of the format and included citation and links to sources in your comments in order to engage discussion. That said, really well articulated, and there is an eye on critical engagement in evidence. You just need to bring this out a little more explicitly in your comments. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments
I'm very very late to be commenting on this, but I really love this post. I've been watching Casey Neistat's videos for years and he always blows me away with seemingly effortless creativity. I think the effort and time that he puts into his daily vlogs is the reason his channel has now become so popular. I know that for me personally I like it when a 'YouTuber' actually cares about the quality of the content they create. It is rare for a creator to treat their channel as a platform to create cinematic storytelling, rather than to make videos simply to gain views. I completely agree with the point about how strange it is to feel a connection with the maker of a viral video, it somehow makes the video more enjoyable and personal when you are aware of the background and effort it took to film it. EilidhNo.2 (discuss • contribs) 13:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 2: Educational Assignment (Visibility and Online Footprint)
I am active on many social media platforms, to greater and lesser extents, though I try to keep as much as possible private, visible only to people I know in real life. As far as I'm aware, I have accounts with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, Snapchat, Pinterest, YouTube (though I do not post videos myself), and YikYak, which is anonymous. Of these, my full name is attached only to one, Facebook, and almost all of the rest share the same username. Out of curiosity I Google searched my name and nothing that comes up on the first page has anything to do with me, which I am pleased about considering what you hear about potential employers searching candidates online- not that I post anything inappropriate anyway! I have always been aware to moderate the things I share online, across all platforms, because I feel like when you share something online, even if you delete it, it is there forever and no matter what you do, you cannot keep tabs on who might see it. Privacy settings can only go so far. I know some people are keen on projecting a certain positive image of themselves online to anyone who may see it; I prefer to share as little as possible and leave first impressions for the first time I actually meet someone rather than let them judge me from my online identity. Lilygeorgia96 (discuss • contribs) 12:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments
It is interesting to see your thoughts about online self-representation. I use most of the same social media sites as you said you did but seem to share a lot more online than you apparently do. However I definitely agree that you have to be careful about employers looking around for your social media accounts, but I don't see the problem with posting the odd drunken photo or whatever... as long as what you're posting isn't offensive/derogatory then I think you should feel free to post whatever you're comfortable posting. Jdwharris (discuss • contribs) 22:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, your post is short, but to the point - and I agree with you in many points. Most importantly the part about the restrictions of privacy settings and the danger employer google searching us. Do you think it should be illegal for employer to do so or do you think it is our own responsibility not to post a lot (but then we might not be able to enjoy the platforms as they were designed to entertain us) and to set our privacy settings correctly (but then you mentioned that these only protect our privacy to a certain point)? Or do your think it should be forbidden? Some employers also call your friends to interview them about you - going on facebook to find out about you might be similar. On one hand they can get how you "really" are (maybe partying a lot, but also a real teamplayer for instance) behind your self-marketing during a job interview. But on the other hand how you act in privacy and how you do your job might not be connected. What do you think? Anyway thanks for your interesting post. :) - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 20:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I agree with both of your points to some extent, I doubt any law could stop employers casually looking up potential employees so I think really, to be on the safe side, it's the responsibility of the individual to either project a positive, employable, responsible image of themselves, or keep it private as much as possible. Of course if there is an aspect of your personality that could hinder your job prospects, whether or not you display this on social media, it will surely be found out eventually if it actually affects your work or career. Either way, as things currently stand, I think it's a case of 'better safe than sorry' with what you share online for all to see. Lilygeorgia96 (discuss • contribs) 21:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with a lot of the points you make here. I think we use social media in similar ways. As someone who uses far less social media sites than you have listed, I can still relate to the the worry of something never being able to be taken off the internet, even if you delete it yourself. When something is uploaded it is usually somewhere online forever, whether you realise it or not. I absolutely agree with the feeling of wanting to limit what you share online. When someone first meets me I would prefer that they didn't already have expectations of what I may be like or a picture of me painted in their heads from what they have seen only from my Facebook page. People are far too complex for every aspect of their self and life to be posted online and I also think it's unnecessary to do so. I think you make some interesting points! EilidhNo.2 (discuss • contribs) 15:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello. This is a very interesting and relatable discussion you have highlighted on your page. Like yourself I have several online profiles for Facebook, snapchat, Instagram and twitter, however I make sure that I keep my privacy settings so that only my friends and family can see what I post, which like yourself is not very much!! I feel like my friends and family, if they care will already know what my interests are, or whats important to me, or something exciting that I have been up too that day.. therefore I do not see it as important to post online everything that I do or what I am interested in. I find it very important that you highlight in your article about how employers could use social media now as an indicator on the type of person you are. This shows how dominant the internet is now and how essential it is that individuals are selective in order to create a desirable impression of themselves. Another interesting feature of the internet is that it will forever keep information that you post online, even if you forget or think you have got rid of it. One app which I have on my iPad is called "time hop". This app is where you link up your social media sites and it will connect with posts that you have posted online in the past. I quite often have notifications of status's or pictures online that pop up that I thought i had deleted years ago or had simply forgot about! Posts I would not dream of submitted online now that I am older and more mature. However it does highlight a very important point that the internet will keep things like this, even if it is not knowledgeable to the user, which therefore emphasises in my opinion why it is so important to watch what you post online. KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 08:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 3: Educational Assignment
It is undeniable that there is an excess of information online, so much so that it is easy to feel overwhelmed and distracted, particularly when looking for factual information on a specific subject, for example a news item, a situation I often find myself in. The scenario is usually that I see a piece of news on social media, posted or shared by a friend, a celebrity or a corporate account which I follow, and then very soon afterwards I see numerous versions of the same thing coming from different sources, down to the phenomena of 'always-on' culture meaning that it is highly likely that more than one person I know will be online and have an opinion to share immediately. Though they all focus on the same subject, often they contain different information, are worded and therefore place emphasis differently, or are clearly affected by some kind of bias on behalf of the writer or sharer, depending on how they wish others to view them; what people share may be based on what they feel will make them appear better to others, or an opinion which will help them to fit in. In these instances I find myself stepping back from social media, as it is never the place I intend to gather my facts, and go to more appropriate sources that I have learnt over time to be more reliable and actually factual. Sites such as BBC News or those of the broadsheet newspapers are often my go-to, and I never rely on just one as it is impossible to gather an objective picture of a situation with just one source. Why I find these to be more trustworthy I think stems from inherently viewing them as sort of figures of authority when it comes to news, but in some instances they may be no more fair or accurate than social media sources- it is often hard to tell when bombarded with so much information.

It is easy to be distracted when something in particular grabs your attention, and of course these days, so much is designed to do so, with 'clickbait' titles to articles or videos which are in fact entirely irrelevant, and the persistent use of scare-mongering used by news outlets to draw in readers. I think it's important to, instead of being drawn in by such tactics, find a few sources which are consistent and reliable, and cross-reference them until you feel you have enough information to draw your own conclusions. In the face of so many opinions, from those you like or dislike or don't even know, it's hard not to be swayed in one direction or another but I think it's really important to be independent in finding out factual information, and know what you're looking for before you get sucked into something unhelpful and irrelevant. Lilygeorgia96 (discuss • contribs) 23:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments 3
Please feel free to comment here!

I found your post really interesting, you make a lot of great points that I agree with. One point that I found particularly interesting are your comments about the objectivity of news sites and the so-called unreliable nature of social media. I completely agree with you. I too use sites such as BBC news or online Guardian articles as a way to clarify or fact-check news stories that I first hear about on social media. Yet, it is hard to know whether these sites are any more unbiased or truthful than the independent sources that I first heard the news from. I think you're absolutely right when you say that the trust we place in these kind of establishments and news outlets stems from a certain authority that they have over the public. There have been countless occasions where I have first learnt about a breaking news story or a world event on Twitter or Facebook. When someone in the public eye dies it is inevitable for me that the first place I will learn about it is on a social media platform. This is true of breaking news, which often reaches social media from eye witnesses faster than it does to established television news broadcasters. An example of this was with the terror attacks in Paris. My Twitter feed was filled with information and speculation before news sites had any clear idea of what was going on at all. The amount of information that we have access to online from so many different sites and sources is often overwhelming and makes it difficult to know which information to trust. EilidhNo.2 (discuss • contribs) 12:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I really like both of your trains of thought here, that suddenly made my tired brain wake up! I totally agree with both of your notions of the Guardian, the BBC, etc, seeming to be reliable news sources because of a feeling of authority. I also think that their big scale reach and appealing, sophisticated layout and design create a certain level of trust coming from the reader. However, I don't think that one could so simply say that news coming from social media is less reliable; on my news feed, much of the news people post are links to articles from the likes of the guardian anyways. Also, I use social media as a means to organize which information I would like to receive by liking certain pages of news broadcasters, including small independent ones, to balance out the information. This helps me to create my own view in a way, because I can gather very differing perspectives. So I think social media can actually be used to create, or try to create, a balanced source of information, depending on how you use it, and of course, as mentioned, you can get first hand information as well. Rosane linde (discuss • contribs) 15:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It resonates with me when you talk about attempting to find factual information online as it has become a hefty affair to sort through the many versions of current events that circulate. I, too, find a good deal of my news on social media, which I find a bit odd considering the volume of opinion that is added to these stories before being shared. The facts become a little muddied after being filtered through all these people, but even going to the mainstream media can provide a challenge in a search for stories that aren't spun to one end or another when most of these entities are known to have at least some form of bias to a political leaning. I agree with your sentiment that some media bodies seem to carry an inherent air of authority to them that influences many people to accept the ideas as complete fact, which can be somewhat precarious in the spread of ideas and can easily be used by larger media bodies to suppress differing ideas offered by smaller or localised media bodies. JacobTheOhioan (discuss • contribs) 01:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely that whether true or not, the BBC or a broadsheet newspaper appear much more accurate than any type of news that may appear on a Facebook timeline. In the past I have even felt less trusting of the BBC Twitter account. Although it shares all the same stories as the website for some reason, probably as you said people tend to appear biased on social media therefore I am less accepting of any news that appears. This acceptance of broadsheet newspapers being truthful could also stem from the fact that perhaps you, as I did, grew up in a house where that was a generally accepted way of getting the news? Your comment on lots of people sharing the same information on Facebook is also something that I find distracting. There have been countless times where I have 'liked' something just for it to reappear shared by a different person. I don't know how you feel on the matter but if both people who have shared it are close friends I feel obliged to 'like' both despite the fact that it is practically the exact same. Clarenotdanni (discuss • contribs) 09:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
Working on the Wikibooks collaborative project brought into realisation the idea of the civic web, and allowed us to put its principles into practice. One big concept behind Wikibooks is that of cognitive surplus - all of the content visible has been contributed by individuals who have researched and written about the topics in their free time, of their own free will, driven by a want to share their knowledge with people online and expand the information which is available. All of the collaboration taking place on the discussion pages is between these volunteers, all trying to make the best page possible for no other reason than to help others learn, ultimately.

Going into the Wikibooks project with a large group, a pre-prescribed topic and each aiming to get the best grade possible, the usual motivation behind creating a Wikibooks page seemed to get lost as everyone tried to navigate and co-operate on the talk page to ensure they had enough to contribute to fulfil the criteria. As maybe not everyone had the interest usually required to want to contribute to a Wikibook organically, it became more about the personal gains than the overall quality of the book, which is where I feel the experience differed from how it would be for a volunteer contributor rather than one on assignment as we were here. The content was generated from necessity rather than genuine cognitive surplus and maybe that harmed the outcome somewhat, but as the collaborative work of numerous, very different students, I feel the finished product is neat, well-researched and formatted, and this is a result of proper collaboration, where everyone did pitch in to help by the end, answering questions and helping one another toward the shared goal, which did not seem likely at the start of the project.

The somewhat contentious idea of participatory democracy came into the execution of the Wikibooks project too. The change from the standard group tasks I have encountered so far at university, to such a large extended group communicating and documenting almost entirely online rather than face to face was certainly challenging. Effectively communicating intentions and ideas, negotiating and compromising, becomes even more difficult when you cannot immediately gauge your peers’ responses. An exchange which would take seconds in reality became laborious, and despite the effort of many people in the group, the discussion became increasingly confusing, not knowing where to post certain things to be seen by the relevant parties, losing threads, information becoming buried, and having to wait for confirmation or validation of your proposed contributions. Despite being a part of a group of four, this almost immediately became redundant and it felt more like being a part of the one big group of over 25. Any offline interactions (of any value) were soon recorded on the discussion page too, where most of our focus for the whole project went.

Looking at the Wikibook itself it is of course not evident the collaborative efforts behind the information, but the discussion page is where the vast majority of the work lies, something I never really understood before this exercise; I always took the information for granted, not the work behind getting it there. Despite the challenges faced on this task I think the overall outcome is good, both in terms of the finished Wikibook and the chance it gave us to put some theories from the module into practice and experience them first hand. At the same time, given the very specific nature of most people’s contributions, I don’t feel many people will have broadened their overall understanding of ‘Public and Private Spheres in the Digital Age’, and there were certainly some complications in the discussion and execution which could have been avoided. Lilygeorgia96 (discuss • contribs) 02:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments
Hello Lily, I think this post is really well written and very thorough in its critical review of the Wikibooks project. I particularly like how you related the critical concepts of participatory democracy and cognitive surplus to the overall project's experience and realisation. In my post I also wrote about cognitive surplus, however you took a different, much more interesting approach to it than I did, that I can personally relate more to. In my post I said that, as one of the main ideas of cognitive surplus being that everybody likes to make the world a better place and to participate in groups to improve something, I argued that we did the same and ultimately improved our knowledge on this particular subject. However, you have argued that the concepts of cognitive surplus are ultimately defeated by deadlines and by potential lack of interest on the subject to talk about, and I could not agree more. While I personally did find interest on what I wrote about, I do agree that the stress of the deadline and the pressure to get a good grade does defeat the whole idea of enjoyment of the Wikibooks ideology, because as other volunteers edit pages for no ulterior motive but to ultimately learn and enjoy this experience, our ulterior motive and major motivation for this project was the deadline and grades, even if you did enjoy the learning process. Although I do understand that this is a University assignment and there must be deadlines and it has to be graded for it to count as legitimate University work, I think that perhaps it took away from the initial idea of Wikibooks. I think this article could also relate nicely to Web 2.0 which Gauntlett describes as a process of "harnessing the collective abilities of the members of an online network, to make an especially powerful resource or service. [...] any collective activity which is enabled by people’s passions and becomes something greater than the sum of its parts." which is essentially what we did in this project, and can be especially seen in the discussion page among with other concepts of the Civic Web. However, another interesting thought could be relating this to the critical concept of Information overload, which I did not add to my post and just occurred to me just now. Because of the largeness of our group in particular, would you say that our experience in communicating with every individual was crippled due to this communication being online? I would argue that because everybody was trying to contribute and discuss, the discussion page became huge, and it was very hard to find a certain section within it. Personally, I would get mentioned about 5-10 times each day in some section or another by many different people, and it proved to feel quite overwhelming! Even moreso when I physically had to remove myself from the laptop and take a break because I actually felt very numb, overwhelmed and exhausted from the huge amounts of stress. Do you relate to this, when I relate this experience to Information Overload? --Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 12:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful comments! I absolutely agree with what you say about the feeling of information overload in particular, given the size of the group (the smaller groups soon became irrelevant) and the emphasis placed on contributing as much as possible, I very quickly found myself overwhelmed with notifications, comments and responses on things I had mentioned, and found it very difficult to keep up. I feel like in a normal talk page this wouldn't be so much of an issue but the stressed importance of communication with so many people in such a short space of time made it feel totally hectic. Locating the relevant thread became increasingly difficult and due to the time constraints and number of people relying on one another to get everything done, it became a case of being 'always on', always alert for new comments on how to proceed, and I found that really overwhelming, as you described, and had to take a break. I'm glad I wasn't the only one feeling this way- it's interesting how these theories come into play involuntarily to teach us a lesson! Lilygeorgia96 (discuss • contribs) 18:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
You appear to be one of the main contributors to the material on sections covering anonymity, public and private spheres in the digital age, privacy rights, and to an extent, hacktivism. Some very well written work content-wise, and you include some interwiki and external links to enrich the sections. I would have liked more evidence linking to relevant scholarship on the topics covered, and citations needs for some of the content produced. Likewise with the exercise posts, although critical reflection and application of key concepts then become abundant in the final post where you seem to really take on board what the brief is asking of you and this evidences a clear learning curve – some exceptional work there in Exercise 4 showcasing deep understanding of processes in the project and how they relate to the modules concerns!

Wiki Exercises


 * Good. Among other things, good 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.

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives a good brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a good range of concepts associated with your subject, and the effort to deliver critical definitions, drawing from relevant literature and scholarship, and your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is very much in evidence. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a good range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, featuring discriminating command of a comprehensive  range of relevant materials and analyses
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material to an exemplary level
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument through considered judgement relating to key issues, concepts or procedures
 * exemplary evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position);
 * comprehensive evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections);
 * considerable evidence of 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) 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)