User talk:Lyndzcmedia

Hi there! This is the user discussion page for Lyndzcmedia (discuss • contribs) 12:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Scottish Young Labour


For this first assignment we've to write about something online that we like - a website, a blog, a game. Well, what better thing to write about than something that you and your friends have created themselves!

Outwith university, I'm quite active in politics, and am currently the Chair of the youth wing of the Scottish Labour Party (trust me, it's really not as fancy as it sounds). Lyndzcmedia (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Basically, the new committee decided to do a mass rebranding of the youth wing. A fresh look. So, we started with a brand new website. Take a look, explore the content, come back another day and check it again.

One of the simplest but perhaps my most favourite thing about the rebrand was creating a new logo for all our social media and for the website. I also like the fact that, as we created the website through Nation Builder, at the bottom of the website it has an area entitled 'Powered by People Like You', where there's a profile photo stream which automatically updates when new people connect with us through Facebook. Plus, using Nation Builder mad it a lot easier for people more used to a bit of Photoshop than making proper websites. The mobile optimised website is pretty nifty too if I do say so myself - there's a nice 'slide out' menu when you tap the menu icon, and everything actually fits on the screen pretty comfortably!

We also have started a new weekly blog (our first which you can find HERE), where members are invited to write their thoughts on what is happening in the political world.

Without doubt though, the best part about the website is the little 'Easter Eggs' we've hidden in it...click here to see one of my favourites.

The website is still in it's formative stages, and still has it's hiccups but it's something we are all really pleased with so far and look forward to making better in the future.

Lyndzcmedia (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Lyndzcmedia (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Lyndzcmedia (discuss • contribs) 13:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I found this really informative as someone who knows little about making their own website, I'll remember to look up Nation Builder in the future, and maybe SYL. --Idkun (discuss • contribs) 23:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
It's clear from this exercise that you have got the hang of wiki markup, although at times it would be best to show a bit more restraint with the use of bold and italics for emphasis. There are also repeated links within the same paragraph, which can be off putting for users. It's worth bearing in mind that the style and tone of these exercises should be a little more formal in future exercises. Despite the good work on your own talk page, you failed to engage with others and leave comments on their exercises. Remember you need to fulfill the brief in full for future assignments.

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) 09:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Introduction
Online identity and the way we present ourselves online has become a major part of our society, and most people now have a large online presence which has become normalized in their life. A large majority of our online visibility as individuals comes from our use of social networking sites, such as Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram. On these sites there is an element of control which we have over what we post about ourselves, what we like, share and comment on, what pictures we post, what things of other that we repost and so on. Does that mean we can fully control our online visibility however? Lyndzcmedia (discuss • contribs) 13:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

My Online Footprint
Personally, I have limited my use of social media websites in order to further try and control my online visibility. I used to have them all - Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, 2 different Tumblr blogs, an account on some short story writing websites (the names of which I don't care to remember in casy anyone goes looking it up!), an equally embarrassing attempt at a YouTube channel, and probably some more that I cant remember and/or have become obsolete in the ever-changing world of social media.

The problem is, although we may have the ability to control what we put online and even who we allow to see this, it is not always possible for us to control what stays online, and more importantly what stays private. I noticed I was spending more and more time on social media and not focusing on my 'real' life. So I just stopped using Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and Tumblr altogether, but never deleted them - they were just left floating around in some unused social media graveyard, probably.

Fast forward to a couple of years later, and I become a candidate for an election. Immediately I start getting messages from friends telling me to stop swearing on Facebook posts, or to delete something I had shared two years ago. If my friends could get this information, most of which I'd totally forgotten about, in the space of a few minutes, what could someone running against me find? I had to take action, starting off with the thing that I used most - Facebook. There are many privacy settings which allow users to control what people see of their posts and what personal information others can see. This meant I could set anything I had posted or shared to either public, only friends, only specific friends, or even only myself. Facebook also allowed me to be able to hide all personal info, such as my birthday, e-mail, phone number, job, and my partner as well. Facebook even lets you change your name to anything so that no-one can find you by your birth name, which can be extremely useful for users safety. After a good hour or so of trawling through almost six years of Facebook posts I thought that was job done. However, I then remembered the graveyard of unused social media...

Lyndzcmedia (discuss • contribs) 15:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

On a weirdly paranoid night after the usual social media output, I decided to google myself. Just to see if anyone had been saying anything nasty or untrue about me - but instead I found something much worse. All those un-deleted social media channels had come back to haunt me. It took me days to reset passwords, log in to accounts, and delete them all. Even then however, some of my footprints still exist; there are YouTube videos others have posted of me that I can't take down, there are screenshots of Tweets and Facebook posts and embarrassing Snapchats that my friends have shared.

Although we can have a lot of control over our online presence, the idea that 'nothing can be deleted from the Internet' is often true - even when looking at Wikipedia, all edit history can be viewed and retrieved if deleted.

From personal experience, I know how important it is to be aware of what I put on social media, who I let see it, and how a lot of things can't be hidden. Whether it is right or wrong, what we put on social media reflects ourselves and that sadly means that people can use it against us if we are not careful. From journalists looking through political candidates personal posts, to employers snooping on their employees, to plain ol social embarrassment - our online visibility and footprint can have serious consequences, and that is what I find most fascinating (and also most terrifying) about the Internet. This assignment is giving me the fear already, and not just about my grade!

Lyndzcmedia (discuss • contribs) 00:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments
- I found it interesting that you were embarrassed by some aspects of your online presence, especially as I am also guilty of an attempt at a YouTube channel. Obviously it is no surprise that our younger selves didn't always know better or may be embarrassing now, but as the internet becomes a prominent part of our lives and especially those of younger children, I imagine that there'll be more and more people that make a digital blunder early on and are permanently marked by it for years after. I would also like to know your thoughts on digging through political candidate's social media. Obviously you've had a bad experience, but what do you think of the practice in general? -ReluctantCyborg (discuss • contribs) 12:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@ReluctantCyborg - I think we've all watched a few too many YouTubers and decided to give it a go ourselves! That is a really interesting point you make there about the younger generation - with the internet becoming more advanced every day I imagine it only gets harder to delete any mistakes. On the question of political candidates, as much as it isn't fun it is probably necessary. Wouldn't want to vote for someone if they weren't true to themselves or have a 'fake' politician personality, and social media posts can be good for figuring this out. Social media also is more likely to show their true policies and beliefs. Plus, if a candidate is running for election they shouldn't have anything to hide lol! Lyndzcmedia (discuss • contribs) 00:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You mentioned that on facebook you can change the username to anything you like, and that reminded me of my friend's username. His name was the name of an animal, and he used it for several years until one day his facebook acount was blocked because of the "danger" that he posed by using an obviously fake username. The person blocking him was some kind of administrator, and, being a very stubborn person, my friend argued back that he would like to have the free choice to use whichever name he would like. He claimed the right to hide his real identity, however the administrator asked him to send a scan of his official id and change his name to his real one. He refused and the argument went on for a long time. I believe now he deleted his account, or it was deleted, and he created a new one using only his first name, as a compromise I guess.. This clearly shows that the control and choice over what information you give about you is limited and information is administered behind the surface of facebook. I hope I didn't make you even more scared now, I just think that these stories should be shared because they show the workings behind social media that hardly anyone knows or speaks about. Rosane linde (discuss • contribs) 17:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Introduction
It is without doubt that the Internet is now the largest source of global information. There are approximately billions of pages of results from any Google or search engine search request. With this expansion of the internet, it means that most of the things that students and individuals need to do for work and University assignments are online; Word documents, module handbooks and assignments only available online, and perhaps most importantly, research and academic reading. As such, when attempting to do any form of work online or when internet access is literally a click of a button away, it is extremely easy to get distracted by the wealth of information so readily available. Lyndzcmedia (discuss • contribs) 09:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The Problem
The first problem commonly encountered with this vast amount of information is that it is easy to get carried away, especially when doing research for a project. One website has a link to another, and it is incredibly easy to go off on a tangent, reading about things that are entirely irrelevant to the original topic of research. Furthermore, this problem is compounded by the fact access to the majority of information online is free and very easy to obtain, and therefore users have little hesitation with regards to scrolling through a large number of internet pages, articles, and other information sources (Berghel,1997 ) Lyndzcmedia (discuss • contribs) 09:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Overcoming Information Overload
So, it begs the question – how does anyone ever accomplish anything when doing work online? Most of the time it involves being strict with your actions, controlling impulses, and most importantly planning ahead. As it is very tempting to just have a quick look at social media, or a read of just one interesting article, or just one YouTube video, self-control is possibly the best yet most difficult way to deal with the vast amount of information and not get overly distracted by it. It is difficult though, as humans are curious beings by nature, and many people are fond of a little procrastination every now and then. It is possible to assist with this though by planning ahead. Arguably, it is much easier to cope with having all this information by making a list before undertaking any research, consisting of the main things necessary to read such as book titles, authors, and any articles. It is also often useful to add subsections to this list, and then limit to only reading a certain umber of articles etc. per topic. This allows an individual the ability to participate in a reasonable amount of research without being distracted or facing ‘information overload’, as they are not doing too much at once or reading far too much to process. When doing work and research online, it is also useful to limit searches to ‘keywords’, which is useful in helping to find only the most relevant information, and therefore again avoiding information overload (Carlson, 2003 . On many websites such as Google Scholar, it is also possible to limit search results by date, author, and publisher to assist with this. Lyndzcmedia (discuss • contribs) 09:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion
Although it is difficult to avoid information overload, as even the most refined of Google searches can return hundreds of thousands of results, it can be made easier to cope with by setting yourself targets and limits, refining online searches using the tools available, and making a detailed plan and timetable to abide by. Lyndzcmedia (discuss • contribs) 01:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments
I agree with you when you say that self-control is probably the best way to deal with such a big amount of information but you need to work hard to keep the focus on the important matters. I still think that we might need to use some tools in order to limit the flow of information. Moreover, it is interesting that you are talking about free information as an intensifier of this problem. When Gutenberg invented the printing press people had to pay for books but scholars still complained about the abundance of information, information overload is not something new, and it is not something solely related to modern technology. GConcilio94 (discuss • contribs) 00:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you put headers made this an easier read and gave it a lot more clarity than others. Your argument seems quite concise but I would like to bring up one thing. You said that it is difficult to not be distracted by the world wide web as it is an easy-access tool. Does that mean you feel it would be less distracting if it was more difficult to access? If it had keywords etc needed in order to gain access to the world wide web, would you not be as intrigued to go online? Digitalkitty (discuss • contribs) 11:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

General Thoughts
On the face of it, this module seemed like it had some of the best assessment methods I've ever seen in my two years of university. No exam, one essay. The main form of assessment constituted writing our own Wikipedia articles for the first few weeks and a final Wikibooks project. Unique and creative, these assessments looked brilliant to me; continuous learning through coursework, learning actual practical skills as well as academic knowledge, and my grade not being assessed on how well I could memorise answers or how well I could regurgitate what I had learned in academic language - all advantages which studies say Wiki platforms provide.

It was when this work actually started where the problems started to unfold. As I am writing this, I feel physically ill remembering the anxiety, stress, and late nights this assessment brought me and others. Personally, the main downfall of this project was the nature of collaboration online, and how the group-work aspect failed throughout this project, as well as inacessibility.

Group Work and the Failure of Online Collaboration
Before starting the Wikibook project, we were informed the most difficult aspect would be managing the sharing of tasks and knowledge within a group online – seemingly manageable in our original groups of 5, but totally the opposite in our groups of 30. In my group especially, the project was structured entirely by two or three individuals only a few days after the start date, and others were left with pages upon pages of discussion to attempt to read through so they knew what was happening. These same individuals also claimed most of the subjects within our topic for themselves, again leaving other members with very little. These are some problems which academic analysts of online collaborative techniques have come across in their studies. Marlene Scardamalia is often cited as one of the pioneers in research of computer-supported Online collaboration. She puts forward some points which are relevant to the issues faced in our project;


 * •	Epistemic Agency : participants recognize both a personal and a collective responsibility for success of knowledge building efforts. They offer ideas and negotiate in order to build something good and they do not expect other people to delineate a course for them. This occurred within the project as a few individuals designed the whole structure early on, and although allowed suggestions and contributions by others, did not allow any deviation from their desired subjects or structures and were intrusive on others work as it did not suit their standards.


 * •  Community Knowledge and Democratizing Knowledge: “knowledge building has its aim to produce knowledge of value to others. [..] All participants are legitimate contributors to the shared goals of the community; all take pride in knowledge advances achieved by the group". In this case, the fact that we knew this affected our grade inhibited the collaborative nature and placed little value on the knowledge we produced as it was not seen as building knowledge amongst the group, but instead an exercise in who could post the most information.

It is in the nature of the civic web and online collaborative projects to share equally the task at hand, and divide roles/tasks equally amongst all participants. However, from looking at what Scardamalia discusses and personal experience, this is not always the case.

David Gauntlett also makes arguments related to the theory of collaboration and the civic web. He argues that one of the main purposes of online collaboration is to create something which benefits everyone, and that individuals participate because they want to share their knowledge and skills with the world. From this, most motivation for online sharing comes from a desire to gain some form of recognition ; in our case, a good grade and/or praise from tutors. This desire then manifested in individuals doing so much work and trying to ‘control’ the project in order to gain the most praise that it left others out and caused conflict within the group – opposite to the aims of online collaboration.

Accessibility
Another major problem of this task was the accessibility issues. Reading a large wall of text is extremely difficult for some (especially black and white constantly), and is anxiety inducing for many, especially when they also feel left out of the conversation as a small number of the group have taken control. Although online platforms remove the difficulty of face to face collaboration, such as distance and scheduling, it is not always conducive, especially in large groups when there are always going to be ‘leaders’. Often meeting face to face is more useful as it is argued it is more civil than the web – no username or screen to hide behind. Furthermore, the format of Wikipedia compounds the issue of inaccessibility and detracts from the knowledge building experience; learning HTML whilst also trying to contribute and understand a course is off-putting and stressful for those who have difficulty with lots of text and who are unable to comprehend coding for whatever reason, plus the fact that formatting of the Wikibook was so important placed less value on the actual knowledge of the module.

Conclusion
Critically analysing this project through the topics of the module was interesting, as it offered some insight into why the project was the way it was, and the way in which individuals conducted themselves throughout. I feel overall the way the project was handled has made me dislike the module and become almost apathetic about my grade, as I felt I had little control and also hated the project so much I just want to forget about it. I never want to see a Wikipedia page again in my life.

Lyndzcmedia (discuss • contribs) 23:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments
It's very sad to hear that people have had such a negative experience regarding this exercise, especially when I believe that it would have been so much more. For me, the problem lies in the fact that it was all for an individual grade so in a way it was every man for himself out on the pages. If this had not been the case or it had been graded differently, it would not have ended in some people taking over the entire discussion page and all the topics. I agree with you that combining coding with the information was difficult as well, as many people did not understand it at all. I myself often had to ask other people to fix the structure for me as I often accidentally deleted tables and titles and things like that. I'm very sorry that it was so awful for you, I hope for you that never have to do a project on Wikipedia again. Marinieuw (discuss • contribs) 10:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
There are clear signs that you have understood the importance of engagement in this exercise: posting to the teahouse, frequent conversation on the Public and Private Spheres talk page, and generous responses to wiki exercises. This is matched with a good understanding of core module themes through the exercies and contributions to the chapter. While the exercises show improvement progressively, all show a good level of reflection that demonstrate an engagement with the module.

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) 14:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)