User talk:MLCRooney

Hi, what topics do you think we should pick for the assignment? KerryFromThePub (discuss • contribs) 13:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kerry, does anyone have a preference? There's a few to choose from : - Technological and Cultural Determinism - Public and Private Spheres in the Digital Age - Surveillance and Sousveillance - Open Source and Proprietary Technologies and Access to Knowledge and Data in Everyday Life. MLCRooney (discuss • contribs) 13:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1 - Educational Assignment

The Tomb Raider games have been around since 1996 and have developed and evolved through the years. The games have advanced through the development of new technology that has affected everything from gameplay to graphics and also the consoles on which the games were played. The first Tomb Raider game was developed by Core Design, and published by Eidos Interactive in 1996 and was available on PC and SEGA return. Since then, the games have been available on PS1, 2 and 3, Xbox 360, Gameboy, Gameboy colour, PSP and the Wii. The newest releases in 2013 and 2015 are two of my favourites. Tomb Raider was introduced in 2013 and was an origin story for Lara Croft and the story of what inspired her to become Tomb Raider. Rise of the Tomb Raider is the 2015’s new addition to the collection. The game provides such diverse climates and landscapes to explore, unlike the previous game, with areas of gameplay in the deserts of Syria and the tundra of Siberia. The game also includes more emphasis on salvaging, hunting, creating and upgrading weapons, outfits and gear - each with their own perks. Rise of the Tomb Raider has more opportunity for stealth kills and provides more equipment than ever before to do this. The story line follows right on from its successor, and Lara Croft is in search of the ‘Divine Source’ to prove her father’s research right. Overall, I would say the newest games have done the series justice.

MLCRooney (discuss • contribs) 21:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Comment

 * A fairly well-written entry. It would have been useful if you had related this to the themes and concerns of the module e.g. there are some readings in the module outline lists that contain pieces on gamification which might have worked really well applied here too and perhaps this journal might be of interest? Would have liked to have seen better use of wiki markup to create links to relevant materials.


 * A post of this standard roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor, and at the low end of the grade band because of the absence of comments:
 * Poor. Among other things, poor entries may just offer links without real comment or apparent point. They may offer nothing more than poor-quality synopsis or description of material of dubious relevance. They may have serious clarity problems (including dead links, random graphics) which affect comprehension (or even worse, admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement). They might be off-topic, private trivia, or of unclear relevance. The wiki markup formatting will be of a poor standard.

RE: Comments on others’ work

 * These are absent. You have not adhered to the brief. Remember that your comments on other people's work is weighted as heavily as your own post when it comes to grades. Not completing this part of the exercise means that, effectively you are halving your mark. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Online Footprint
Visibility

Visibility online varies depending on the platform, and others you are in contact with on each platform. Facebook in my case is mostly used to support and promote various organisations that post news and content of their Facebook pages for easier promotion and distribution. For example, I follow a local cat shelter that shares images of lost and homeless cats called Sunny Harbour, which some of my family and friends have been involved with, and need fundraising to help support their organisation. My personal identity is represented more by what I find important, rather than portraying myself with a possibly deceiving profile picture, which may have been edited before uploading.

Privacy

Privacy has become a big issue in general with the rise of viruses and hackers, everyone is rightly so more paranoid over their information and what is posted online, and what other people can access. There has been a study done on the social media platform Snapchat, and it’s set up of deleting pictures after being viewed. As done as part of an Advanced Mobile Forensics course at Utah Valley University, Decipher Forensics conducted a study on the app, to find if the information send from it could be recovered. The study concluded, “metadata is stores for snapchat images… and that images that are sent via Snapchat are indeed recoverable, and do not “disappear forever”.

Things like this leave information wise open to the hackers of the world, and identity theft, and blackmail are not unheard of. The TV Show ‘Catfish’ follows the stories of people who suspect people talking to them online aren’t who they think they are. This show highlights just how easy it is to save someone else’s pictures and pass them off as your own online. Decipher Forensics on Snapchat: http://www.decipherforensics.com/snapchat/ MLCRooney (discuss • contribs) 17:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments
I found this informative and unnerving. Unlike you, I am a ghost on social media, in that I prefer not to post but rather observe. Your approach to Facebook and such seems to be more helpful for the wider community, rather than the mass use of uploading a selfie. What I found unnerving was the study you mentioned wherein snapchat photos are not truly gone, but in the pit of the internet for anyone to salvage. There is a new legislation being proposed by Theresa May where everybody's internet activity is free to be tracked by spy agencies. I may sound a little paranoid, but the article states they will need a police warrant or any type of reason to go looking through your internet life- scary thought even if you have done nothing wrong. Here is the link if you want to read more about it. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/04/theresa-may-surveillance-measures-edward-snowden NoRagrets9 (discuss • contribs) 18:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload!
Always-On

Information is now more readily available than it ever has. Instead of heading to the library and looking up an encyclopedia or reference book, information is not literally at our fingertips. Mobile technology has only fed our ‘always-on’ culture and our way of life. Mobility in new technology makes it easy to assist with constant connectivity to the web and its constant upload of new information. Our connections to the new technology become stronger as we are using them more and more over time. The constant connectivity goes hand in hand with becoming more tethered to our smartphones and technology. Danah Boyd in The Social Media Reader describes: “It’s about living in a world where being networked to people and information wherever and whenever you need is just assumed.” (2012)

Filtering

However those who live in this constantly evolving and uploading environment learn to adapt to find and filter all this information to what is it that we find interesting. Filtering information is a new function, which many different platforms are taking into account. Some prefer to call it ‘personalisation’ in which a viewer/reader/customer may ‘personalise’ their information to find instantly what they want. BBC news have an app and a filter function called ‘My News’ in which various countries, subjects, and interests can be highlighted and filters only stories relating to that data. Facebook prioritises posts you want to see first at the top of your timeline, and Amazon has a ‘recommended for you’ section, based on your previous purchases, to customize Amazon for the customer.

Distractions

One reason for having to filter information is to avoid distractions, which are very tempting especially when there is work to do and there is a deadline. One way to filter information is to filter out the distractions. Programs such as ‘STOPDISTRACTIONS’ limits the websites you can access over a certain period of time, it blocks social media sites, or anything you enter which can distract you.

Loyalty

In the time of need for specific information, one may also go to a trusted, reliable source to ensure information given to them is trustworthy. Sources such as the BBC and The Guardian are well known for their respected status as reliable and accepted. However, when it simply comes to searching for information before you reach a site, a search engine is sought out usually, and Google is one that has made a name for its self, that being told to ‘Google it’ is a daily occurrence. Using trusted outlets is one way to try to deal with this information overload.

MLCRooney (discuss • contribs) 00:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the "STOPDISTRACTIONS" program before now, I may have to look into it and give it a try next time the information readily available online becomes a distraction during essays or whatnot. It's interesting to compare studying and information-gathering of today and of 15 or so years ago - like you said, long gone are the days of having to go all the way to the library to look up things in books; now this is all at our fingertips on the Internet. It'll be interesting to see how much this changes over the next few years, if at all! CalSmith96 (discuss • contribs) 18:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments
That was a really interesting read and you highlighted a lot of interesting points. I like how you made the concept of filtering easy to understand through describing personalising information. The advice about using trusted outlets as a means to not get distracted sounds like a really simple solution! Good job √ --WiKirsten (discuss • contribs) 17:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is actually quite easy to filter information if you really want to, especially if you are part of the 'digital native' generation and have a broader understanding of the dangers of information overload. However I'm not so sure about your point about media outlets that you would class as 'loyalty'. The Guardian is a heavily left-leaning paper that arguably has a very one-sided stance, and I personally view the BBC as being a pretty dangerous form of information as I can think of several times it has purposely neglected its principles and of neutrality. I think all information we receive should be taken with a pinch of salt, as it is practically impossible to document the facts in a way that doesn't privilege a certain standpoint in some way. As is pointed out in DIGITAL MAOISM: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism even Wikipedia can be guilty of this. Ted 95 (discuss • contribs) 18:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I like the way you broke down this answer, as the sub-headings really give a fresh perspective. The category that rang true to me the most was the intrusive nature of social media platforms and shopping websites. If you are considering buying something and leave it in your shopping basket, there is usually a follow up email telling you to buy this item. I find this internet tactic quite scary and it certainly makes me more nervous to give my email out or show any type of personality on the internet, because once they have it they won't let it go. It's almost like stalking, but you are not able to find the root to pull out the weed and stop the growth. Great read. NoRagrets9 (discuss • contribs) 00:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The way you broke down this answer into different sections made it really easy to understand and read. Do you think that simply "googling" an answer is enough to find a reliable answer and do you think that perhaps universities should be more trusting in students referencing websites and news articles? ItsMartholomew (discuss • contribs) 03:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It is interesting how you talk about filtering to stop distractions but I have found that after "personalizing" my web browsers I get MORE distracted as I start seeing adverts for things I like or suggested pages that come up. This will usually take me on a tour of the internet and it takes me double the time to get to what I actually need. I find the best way of combating this is to open an incognito tab which allows you to browse without having your interests shown first. This can also help when looking for resources as Google will usually put what interest you most at the top of the page but when incognito you have the generalized version, that is the most visited pages/ the most trustworthy pages. Unprofesh (discuss • contribs) 11:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
Peter Dahlgren, relating into the week of the “Civic Web”, discusses the collaborative nature of Social Media and Political Participation, in the book Critique, Social Media and the information society. He however, first explores the idea of participation its self, and its relation to media and political agency. His ideas originate from the “notion of the political, which refers to the ever-present potential for collective antagonisms, conflicts of interest, in all social relations and settings”. I found this to be the case in relation to our collaborative project, An Internet of Everything. Regardless of David Gauntlett’s expectation of “harnessing the collective abilities of the members of an online network, to make an especially powerful resource or service”, working with such a large group of people, is bound to cause problems. While working collectively with my class to produce the wikibooks, I came across various problems with the group work. To begin, being put into a group to produce content for a chapter of the wikibooks started off strong, as we worked together to come to decisions of things such as the team name, and our choice of chapter. However, from there onwards, problems arose. We had problems arranging face-to-face discussions as everyone has conflicting schedules, and beyond the chapter choice, people took a while to commit or share their choice of subject. This made it hard to work collectively in this group, and so I turned to the discussion page of the wikibook.

Despite being met with a number of people much larger than my personal group, the discussion page offered support, ideas, and help. I was able to communicate with other people, within the specific subject I wanted to write about, and was able to support my fellow students by offering help, and was given support in return when confusion arose over which topic my point would be more appropriate under. It was a more professional setting almost, where everyone was formal to an extent, and where people were eager to help and support each other. However, there were others who disregarded the discussion page or didn’t take it into account, and wrote and filled in the blanks without consulting anyone else. For the majority, people were not wanting to step on one another’s toes, and people cleared their ideas and choices on the discussion page to ensure their entries didn’t copy or conflict with anyone else’s. Dahlgren again words this idea well by saying “participation means involvement with the political, regardless of the character of scope of the context. It therefore always in some way involved struggle.”

Also, the support group set up of the discussion page also acted on the idea of democracy, as each member held the same sense of authority, and so consulted each other, with discussions and negotiations that for the most part were enacted with respect for one another.

Comment
Hi, a really good reflection of the project. I really like your point about participating and supporting on the discussion pages as an idea of democracy as each member held the same sense of authority. I guess, in our particular case, it was very useful that the whole discussions for the project took place here and not on Facebook or any other social media platform as I believe that the respect would suffer a disadvantage. The more formal manner of the Wikibook collaboration made us aware of our responsibilities and lead to a more respectful engagement. This kind of “collective awareness” was one of the most important notions besides the exchange of know-how and creation of the book.--Esser.h (discuss • contribs) 00:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I had similar experiences with this project. I do believe also that the discussion page of this project was by far the most valuable resource in communication and finding a way for everyone had a voice. I like the way you link Dahlgren's notion of collaberative work in the web, as this was the the most important (I believe) aspect of the assignment. Sure, there are the occasional discrepancies, but by working maturely and using the valuable sources the internet and Wikipedia has to offer, it has really offered an insight to how professional projects surrounding internet collaboration work. It may not be easy but it is worth it for the end product. NoRagrets9 (discuss • contribs) 01:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I was glad to read that your reflection of the Wiki Books experience was an overall positive one and that the discussion groups were of a great help to you. As a member of your group, allow me to apologise for appearing not to be there. It wasn't my intention, I had an English extension and was very behind with that module. As part of my argument about the WIKI Books medium, I would like to clarify that until late on, I was unaware that there were individual discussion pages for the section and communicated in vain to the discussion group of another member of our team. This makes me agree with you that I believe WIKI Books was not the best platform for this kind of project. I see where you are coming from @Esser.h in that it did offer us a sense of responsibility as part of a collaborative project: however, I have yet to understand the point of us having to learn Wiki Mark-Up code which was a disadvantage on this platform. I am not particularly computer literate for these kinds of things (yes I appreciate the irony of taking a digital media module) but it was only because I was under the misapprehension that I had to take it as part of my joint degree. Anyway, if the WIKI Books experiment was to demonstrate the advantages of being what Richard Jenkins describes as the 'Participatory Culture' as well as the Pierre Levy Collective Intelligence as well as 'Participatory Democracy', then I think a more user-friendly platform would have been able to more freely use Jenkin's ideals including:

'1. Relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement

2.Strong Support for creating and sharing creations with others,

3. Some type of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most experienced is passed along to the novices,

4.Members who believe their contributions matter,

5.Memebers who feel some degree of social connection with one another (at the least care about what other people think about what they have created.'

If someone could legitimately argue the point of the added headache of Wiki mark-up (which I admit almost left me in tears of frustration) other than special skills I could add to my CV, then I will gladly listen but until then I believe that this experiment may have been more successful on a user-friendly platform.

HayleyJo87 (discuss • contribs) 09:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
Contribution to the chapter page was minima, with a single significant edit and some formatting fixes on that section (Telephones). These total 400 hundred words at most, made in the last moments of the project period, and were fact-based, rather than ideas/discussion-based. This doesn't really reflect the quality nor quantity of work required at honours level.

Wiki Exercises


 * 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.

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives a satisfactory brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a fair range of concepts associated with your subject, and an effort to deliver critical definitions. There is evidence that you draw from relevant literature and scholarship, however your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is slightly lost, perhaps due to a variable depth of understanding the subject matter or over reliance on rote learning. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a somewhat circumscribed range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of limited critical engagement with set material, although most ideas and procedures insecurely grasped
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material limited, displaying a qualified familiarity with a minimally sufficient range of relevant materials
 * Argument and analysis:
 * poorly articulated and supported argument;
 * lack of evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * lack of evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections in discussion);
 * evidence of independent critical ability limited, due to the fact that your grasp of the analytical issues and concepts, although generally reasonable, is somewhat insecure.

Engagement (weighted 50%)

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

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 15:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)