User talk:LucyClaire

This is my wikibooks user discussion page. I will be using this page as part of an assignment.

Please feel free to comment on my discussion.

LucyClaire (discuss • contribs) 14:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikibook Exercise 1 - Educational Assignment
My passion ventures beyond the small town of Stirling and takes priority across the globe. Irish dancing is more than a hobby, but a lifestyle - constantly thinking and performing dance. So how does this relate to digital media and culture? Irish dance has always belonged to a specific, traditional culture which I have great interest for, but also what has followed a traditional society has moved along and is being shaped now majorly in the media. For example - BBC Northern Ireland has recently been releasing new episodes of Irish dance and culture which would not have been possible years ago. This progress for cultural determinism has proven the demand for Irish dancing and culture to spread across many different platforms including television, film, social media and multiple websites. Particularly among young people, the drive to provide media for coverage of competitions, results pages and competition links is now possible due to the range of media society is now immersed in. The video linked to this discussion which takes the form of a documentary presents Irish dancing as a sport and this is something I deeply believe in. This broadcast by the BBC opens up many opportunities for a range of people to get an insight into this world and television as a form has grown so much that it is now not only live but can be watched by millions on line on catch-up TV. This can also be linked to narcissistic behaviour online as the documentary seeks to justify the biases that dance is a sport but also that it is more than just the outer image it provides.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06zz7t0/jigs-and-wigs-the-extreme-world-of-irish-dancing-series-2-5-angelas-athletes

LucyClaire (discuss • contribs) 11:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC) LucyClaire (discuss • contribs) 15:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
You've linked your reflection and comments to themes in the module, which is good to see, although this would be improved by adding references to concepts such as "cultural determinism" and ensuring that they are fully integrated into your discussion. You might also want to think about ways of using wiki markup more effectively to embed more links into your writing, as well as other ways of using the affordances of Wikibooks more fully.

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. Sprowberry (discuss • contribs) 10:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, I will take this on board. LucyClaire (discuss • contribs) 14:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikibook Exercise 2 - Educational Assignment
How visible are you online?

This question is something which most of us do not think about until we are asked in an assignment. It questions the privacy of profiles but also our activity and how often our names appear on social media. It can definitely be said that I am an 'online addict' as I constantly think about social media and explore social media every day. Connected to Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat, more than half of my day is spent scrolling. Growing up in a very influential society, social media was only being introduced in small doses, however, as someone with a smaller sibling, I watch and am concerned for the tools with which she understands how she is using social media and how 'normal' it seems to be online. Behaviour online has developed across generations and as long as platforms for social media are being created, the more visible people will be. The concept of "always on" is crucial here as despite not always being on your phone, most of us and I for one am always either connected to a WIFI/4G and so receiving updates and news around the world.

So, what does it mean for me to be visible online?

My visibility changes across different platforms and it is interesting to evaluate the difference between each. My Facebook takes different forms of privacy to Instagram despite using both for almost the same reasons and time of activity. Facebook offers a more virtual life than any other application - displaying a picture most likely of yourself, nationality, date of birth, possibly relationship status and education/work place. For me, Facebook is used as a way to keep updated with friends who live far away, talk to friends and generally follow the 'trend'. My own Facebook is private which restricts information to those who I am not friends with. This not only keeps private my own information but also my own online identity. Papacharissi says that this online 'performance' creates a desired image of ourselves in seek of positive feedback. I agree with this to some extent as I do like presenting a positive image, however, I disagree with his point because society is now more open to people in their natural state and not hiding their flaws.

Hey, that's the same for me with having different levels of visibility on different platforms. Different apps have different codes of conduct and social dynamics. Facebook seems to be your official representation of yourself online now, or at least your impressionistic representation of yourself. Whereas platforms such as Snapchat allow for a more diverse and flexible way of sharing, being able to pick directly who sees it and the fact messages disappear after a set amount of time. However, the screenshot function also counteracts this belief as you don't leave your trust just in the application but who you are sending this information too also. Braydencoulman (discuss • contribs) 15:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I understand your points and totally agree and follow the same steps when I use social media. An app like snapchat is a little deceptive as although it promises to hide information and only be seen once, can actually be manipulated and be screenshotted and saved forever. Inevitably, we need to be careful of our online presence and the image and messages we are sending across social media. LucyClaire (discuss • contribs) 21:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

What does it mean to be private online?

Many would argue what the purpose of being private online is. The main argument being the use of the application is not used to its full potential, but, not all users are fair online. The type of information which I allow online is different to each app again. My instagram is public which allows anyone to view and I do not share a lot of personal information because the app does not require it. But, on Facebook I share with my friends my basic information including: home town, date of birth and some family. I intentionally do not share information such as religious beliefs or political stance as I fear of confrontation online.

Overall, I am happy with my online presence and visibility online. I feel that I can safely control my own information and also protect my identity online. I think by being part private and part public, it allows no barriers to the use of the app but also a limit and prevention to any major problems online.

LucyClaire (discuss • contribs) 21:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

References http://aspireid.com/social-media/facebook-fan-page-timeline/ http://reader.eblib.com/(S(elqi0san3klbw0nnkkd5lfds))/Reader.aspx?p=574608&o=289&u=bZ8sqVOgXlieIbRSW6AiAqFPcFw%3d&t=1456137546&h=52FB4330EAD0C77C421459814E40B16B93B55374&s=42433940&ut=879&pg=1&r=img&c=-1&pat=n&cms=-1&sd=2

Wikibook Exercise 3 - Educational Assignment
Information is in entire overload as the resources for every piece of information is available. Not only is there multiple sources of information readily available, the number of search engines acting as tools for the information are forever growing and expanding in data size. This growth has meant that for users like myself, when searching for one simple term can lead to millions of different sites of information and leaves me as a user lost and more confused than when I first began. Information now needs to have more filters in order to restrict searches and restrict the type of source which is made available.

'''How do you deal with the fact that there is a lot of information out there and that it is easy to be distracted? ''' In order to keep my online activity on a straight path I always use the same sources. I use trusting sources for information such as BBC website, newspapers websites, local news sites and other pieces written by trusting journalists. By doing this, it restricts my reading to either one or multiple sources and strays away from doubt of facts and information. I sometimes compare pieces of work to double check the information is correct and this means that I am not distracted with useless information or jargon. When searching online, I try to be concise as the vast amount of information online can be problematic. However, if I try to be really specific with the sort of information I am looking for then I will save time and effort searching through sources which are not relevant.

So, how do I deal with this?

I have figured this to be the most useful way to deal with information as it can be very time consuming to sort through multiple different sources giving different types of information. By organising my search and understanding the background of my topic, I know what sources are reliable and by doing this, I don't run into any problems if I ever fact check. Information is now more available than ever before and since this information is available at a simple click of a button, it is important to understand the distinguishing good sources from the bad. By dealing with this in this way, it means that I can confidently research work, be sure of the information I am using and it prevents computers from getting any viruses from rogue websites. In the work by Lanier it can be said that small changes online can have big impacts on our behaviour online.Google is the most successful search engine with innovative ideas particularly in advertising. This increases the information load not only in the search criteria but also the surrounding information which Google provides - e.g. advertising. Lanier also continues on to say the creation of the web was a lock-in, providing to some extent freedom and exploration to users. Therefore, the amount of information which we are being opened to is always growing.

What factors influence by decision to sort information? There are some major factors which I take into account before clicking on any links to information or accessing unknown content. When information comes in an abundance, I tend to review the information by the same process. Firstly, the source itself is key to whether the page is reliable, known and what style and level of content it provides. Also, elements such as the publisher and the publishing dates influences my decision whether to trust the information. The reason for publishing I feel is also very important when I decide whether to access information. The agenda behind the piece can help me choose whether a piece is something of neutral stance or in support of a particular side. For example, during the vote for Independence, it was important for me to read neutral based articles in order to shape my decision and avoid overloads of information which was not of relevance for me.

As mentioned by Simon Rowberry in this weeks lecture, there are six main servers and it is near impossible to take down all six of these major search engines. These six lead to all sources of information and to conclude this, we should be more careful with the ones we use and the type of content we ask out of these programmes.

Comments

Hey! This is a really interesting entry and takes quite a critical look at how we decide to be visible online. I think you've formatted it really well and also link it back to a lot of the theory we've been talking about in lectures and in class which is great! I think sometimes with assignments like these it's easy to get too descriptive and personal but this entry definitely doesn't have this problem and was a really great read. Well done and thanks for posting it!Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 15:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. It really means a lot to hear that you enjoyed reading my piece. Especially when talking about visibility online, it is important to understand we live in a world filled with users and full of networks so when doing this assignment I tried not to get caught up in myself as a user but try to think about users as a whole. Although, when reviewing my own visibility, it definitely opened my eyes a little to the amount of social media I actually use! LucyClaire (discuss • contribs) 15:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Your way to critically analyse the information you read is very wise. However that only seems to apply to formal information, news, journals, academic texts... I would like to know how you deal with social media? Surely you do not consider the date of publication and such when you go through your social media messages. When you mentioned viruses I started to think how easily we click from page to page without really thinking what kind of page awaits us behind the next link. I myself find the links in social media the most troubling. If someone I know or follow links something on their post, it is easy to click the link and get to a strange pages which are not always what they seemed to be. Also sometimes when I have been searching for some information for Uni work or such I have ended up in sites that do not seem trustworthy. For example, when I did research that involved North Korea, some of the google entries were questionable. The link in social media or in Google search page does not always look "dangerous" and do not tell us what kind of content and potential thread to our little computer they hide. Only after opening it we actually know what sort of site it is. Sirrinari (discuss • contribs) 16:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your comments and feedback, I really appreciate that. It didn't cross my mind about how I evaluate the information on social media but that is truely the heart of where there is information overload. When I approach social media I do take a different approach to that of more formal works. For example, when using Facebook I analyse the user who provides the information, the time of posting - how old is this post and has anything changed since it was last posted? - and the reaction which this information has. LucyClaire (discuss • contribs) 21:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey I think your blog was really well done and manages to link back to the course really well! I also use different sources for looking up information and find it useful to use more than one source to double check the accuracy of information online. With the abundance of information I think it's important to find trustworthy sources and not trust the first source you come across. Braydencoulman (discuss • contribs) 22:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Braydencoulman (discuss • contribs) 22:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Thank you for your comments! It is essential to always check the source from which the information comes from and I think that as society becomes more digital, we are more likely to trust the first source of information and this can be problematic. LucyClaire (discuss • contribs) 10:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikibook Exercise 4 - Reflective Account
Collaboration in the wikibook project

The collaborative nature of wiki books is simple - everyone work together fairly and respectfully and the result will be positive. However, for many people like me, collaboration was an even bigger task than the one at hand. The small groups to begin with were very manageable and pleasant, until we were placed in a pool of people and had to attempt to equally contribute ideas and content.

This massive size of group did not help to follow the collaborative nature as essentially, this is an assignment for university which is worth a major section of the module and it was ‘every man for themselves’ in some cases. Working in a group has never been an issue for myself, in fact it is something which I particularly enjoy, but, this capacity of group was too big for everyone to get exactly what they wanted.

In person, the organisation of sections was easy. Although a little strange to be talking in person with people I did not know instead of online, I found the communication and collaboration enjoyable. Our group was organised with the structure we wanted to create and with the sort of content we all wanted to cover. The separation of topics came naturally as everyone had their own unique ideas of content and were aware of the type of content needed to succeed in this task.

The key elements to succeed in gaining a top mark in this project were:


 * Collaboration with others
 * Engagement with others and focus in the tasks
 * Understanding the content at hand
 * Creativity in exercises and interaction with others

These entire elements link to ‘The Civic Web’ as they are all related to the politics of the network. This means that each user connected to the wikibooks were involved in the politics of everyday – freedom of expression and ability to freely explore the programme but soon found out that the Politics of wikibooks did not create a positive atmosphere for collaboration – not everyone was willing to abide by the rules.

"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." - David Gauntlett

This quote from Gauntlett not only explains the politics of the wikibooks – everyone work collaboratively to create a joint project – but also displays the civic nature which the wikibooks took on; creating an attitude which was willing to engage and contribute. This engagement links to both contributing to the discussion pages and comments on others pages. Many positive comments were received and posted on each others’ pages and there were no issues here, but when placed in a large group, this collaborative nature was difficult to contain.

The wikibook project does not only relate to David Gauntlett but also to work by Henry Jenkins. In his book ''Convergence Culture: Where old and new media collide", it is brought to our attention that participatory culture is one of the key factors to creating a successful convergence of ideas across different platforms – in this case between different wikibook users.

He begins by saying “As Pool predicted, we are in an age of media transition, one marked by tactical decisions and unintended consequences, mixed signals and competing interests, and most of all, unclear directions and unpredictable outcomes.”

This statement clears up issues around media convergence as it explains the meaning behind the collaboration of media platforms and the unexpectedness of the end results of combining, but essentially this describes the experience of wikibooks since there were so many different people with multiple ideas and many of us unsure how to work the platform.

Overall, wikibooks is successful in its idea of creating a platform for engagement and contribution to new pages for information and attempts to collaborate so many different people and media’s. However, this participatory democracy did have many disadvantages when trying to complete an educational assignment as so many do have the right to voice their opinion and contribute, it created a conflict instead of collaborative.

References

Wikibook Exercise 4 - Comments
Please feel free to comment!

Hi Lucy, this is a really great post. I really like how you connect to many theories and especially to media convergence.
 * "[...]participatory culture is one of the key factors to creating a successful convergence of ideas across different platforms – in this case between different wikibook users."

I wholeheartedly agree on this, and this is why I think it is a wonderful thing to have platforms like Wikis. Going back to ancient times, people's public sphere to get in touch with other people's thoughts, were very restricted. Nowadays we have so many possibilities to get involved with other opinions uncoupled of place and time. And the more we engage and the more people engage, the more exchange is enabled. Here I disagree a little bit, with your final statement, that a problem was that so many people voiced out their thoughts, although I do think, it was troubling, that too many people worked on the project. However I personally think, that discussion is a necessarily important think for a participatory culture and that both enrich each other. So stating many different thoughts are totally fine - the problem is rather if people do not discuss to cooperate, but to only follow self-interest. If you look at past big revolutions, where participatory culture was an enhancing and successful tool (i.e. Arab Spring), there always has been a common interest, although different opinions to get there. What do you think? - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 15:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I love the examples you have given me and totally agree with your post. It is interesting to look over the content which we posted along with others opinions and how we were able to process the information. I understand why you may disagree with my final statement as I feel it is quite personal to me. Participatory culture is all down to contribution from multiple people and platforms, which wikibooks was essential to defining. I think I should have made it more clear that the issue of wikibooks was not that users had too many opinions but more the amount of different opinions was difficult to manage. LucyClaire (discuss • contribs) 21:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey Lucy, I really enjoyed reading your post! I think you link in a lot of theories really well to your post, but I understand exactly what you were saying about the huge size of the groups we were placed in making things difficult as I felt the same way. I feel like Wikibooks might have been an okay way to start working on the content but I felt like the project would have went more smoothly if we were in smallers groups and so could speak more in person to share ideas. But I definitely agree with your point that there was so many different people with different ideas in the group but unfortunately due to the platform it became difficult for us all to effectively share our ideas.Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 12:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
This is a competent Wiki portfolio featuring a good range of contributions over time that demonstrate an understanding of the affordances of Wikibooks as a platform, despite being relatively safe with wiki markup. You have evidence of sustained engagement with peers and of secondary reading (although referencing is not always of the highest quality). Your wiki exercises demonstrate a progressive improvement in critical argument and reflection from first to last. Your contributions also demonstrate an understanding of the material, although it's not a good idea to directly quote lectures without finding the underlying material.

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, although some ideas and procedures more securely grasped than others
 * evidence of independent reading of somewhat circumscribed range of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument featuring variable depth of understanding
 * satisfactory level of evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * satisfactory 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 variable 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) 14:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)