User talk:Mad00092

Annotated Bibliography
PETERS, JOHN DURHAM. "You Mean My Whole Fallacy Is Wrong": On Technological Determinism." Representations, vol. 140, no. 1, 2017, pp. 10-26.

In this essay, John Durham Peters puts forth some very interesting ideas which arise by examining the notion of "Technological Determinism" from a different perspective. The work is essentially a meta-critique of the way in which technological determinism -similarly to a variety of other fallacies- is used to silence or shun scholarly thinkers through accusation of blindness, fallaciousness and single-mindedness. Peters at one point claims that, “To call someone a technological determinist is to claim all the moral force on your side without answering the question of what we are to do with these devices that infest our life.” It is Peters’ contention that to bring up charges of technological determinism in academic discourse against another scholar effectively silences that person. Peters rejects this act and claims that fallacies need to be understood beyond the surface, that they are more than mere logical missteps. In its essence, the essay’s primary concern is that the road of inquiry is being blocked off prematurely due to students and scholars alike being intimidated by the metaphorical specter of technological determinism. Peters goes on to explore and discuss the intellectual origins of “techno-determinism” with reference to sociologists Robert MacIver, Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills. Peters also uses a running example of McLuhan’s dialogue in Woody Allen’s “Annie Hall” (1977) to both introduce and conclude his train of thought. In exploring not only the nature of technological determinism, but also how it came to fruition as a concept commonly regarded as fallacy, Peters’ discourse is genuinely refreshing in its criticism of scholarly bickering and also in the notion that perhaps academic culture can -on occasion- repress the overpowering urge to be “smarter than the other guy” and tolerate the occasional fallacy -namely technological determinism- in pursuit of a more important subject of academic inquiry.

A Reflective Account
Using the wikibooks platform as a form of collaboration with academic work proved -at first- to be somewhat troublesome and difficult to understand. The user interface is not exactly streamlined for conversation and the unnecessary use of over complicated syntax-like commands in the editing section was frustrating. However, the wikibooks platform is not a social media. It is not supposed to be facebook, or instagram. As my collaborative work developed, it became easier to use wikibooks and I began to understand why it appeals to a scholarly demographic. At first, my group was meeting in person in computer labs trying to understand how wikibooks worked. By the end of the project, we were all typing away with gusto, each in our own homes. The use of ‘tagging’ or ‘@ing’ each other on the discussion page made wikibooks actually fairly accessible, and the way in which wikibooks emphasises visibility by making our discussion a page with structure gave us plenty to do. (By this, it is meant that any given wikibooks page is created, not for the convenience of those writing it, but for the convenience of those reading it. It is essentially a facilitator of publishing.)

The ability for each user to freely edit, rearrange and elaborate on the work in a constructive manner greatly helped to strengthen the collaborative aspects of the work. For example, after adding any given body of text on the final essay, we created a comments section in which other students can give constructive criticisms in order to maximise the quality of the work. The ability to insert drop-down selection menus in our particular page made it easy to navigate the otherwise mind-boggling string of words and discussions. There is also a feeling of community on wikibooks. Not only does it allow for quick and efficient (although at some times, not easy) communication between team members, but it also allows for communication between all users. In this sense, it becomes very easy to see wikibooks as a social media platform (or at least a social media platform for academics). The using the platform as a way of collaborating online represents the notion of digital commons, that the whole online resource is managed and developed by its community of users. Essentially, wikibooks promotes freedom of information that can be owned and created collaboratively. The essay which I created along with my fellow students contains a great deal of information that I - individually - thought of. However, wikibooks encourages its users to let go of hoarding information and credit, and to embrace a more ‘team player’ sort of attitude. I find this a very appealing aspect of the platform as a whole. Another one of these appealing aspects is the inherent feeling of emancipation that comes with using a wiki platform. Because of the way that the information is considered to be owned by the collaborative public, there is and underlying freedom from the hoops one would otherwise need to jump through in the academic world. Additionally, publishing any work in a different scholarly setting -which is to say publishing a report or writing a thesis- requires a great deal of referencing everyone’s work, going out of your way and ultimately, the whole process is a mess. This is not the case with wikibooks, which is probably the most important and satisfactory feature that the platform has.

Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 09:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments on Reflective Account
I would have to agree with you that the Wikibooks user interface is not very streamlined, I believe there is a quite steep learning curve when starting out with the platform as you have touched upon the commands while editing is overly complicated. I certainly found this to be the case even after using the platform for over a month I recently signed my work incorrectly as the platform had signed me out unknowingly therefore it never signed off from my profile. As we were in the same group for the collaborative essay project I imagine we shared many of the same experiences of Wikibooks, as you mentioned the group met in a lab to get to grips with the platform and initiate the project. At that moment I was not enjoying the platform, but as you discuss towards the end of the project the majority of the group were all working away productively in an independent manner and then uploading to the discussion to turn this independent work into a more developed collaborative piece. I find the way in which you compare Wikibooks to a social media platform fascinating as it is an approach I had never considered when thinking about the platform. The more I think about it from this approach the more I agree with you, it really can be looked at as a social media for learning. The opportunities to comment on or add to any piece of work is encouraged and it allows the platform to develop a community feel in which engagement with others work is at the centre of the platform. It could be argued that engaging with others on the platform is similar to engaging with other users on social media sites with an academic undertone as the purpose of the engagements will most likely be centred around academic work. As you will be fully aware one member of our group failed to contribute during the entire discussion period of the project, this hindered the project to an extent as we were not sure whether or not to expect a completed part of his assigned section. Relating this to the idea of Wikibooks as a social media, the platform does not have the feature all social media sites have in that it is not possible to message a user directly, this proved frustrating as although I used the reply feature to tag our absent group member he was never active up until the day before the deadline and we could not directly message him to ask for his contribution. The lack of this feature prevents Wikibooks from being a social media site I believe, despite it sharing some properties. Wikibooks does emphasise collaborative work and becoming a team player in its online community as you mentioned, yet the platform’s focus is not on direct communication which is the main purpose of social media sites, allowing Wikibooks to stand as a unique platform. Overall, Matthew I think this is a very well written reflective piece, you discuss your personal experiences with the platform relating to the collaborative essay project we worked on, whilst also discussing the platform as a whole. This provides a very good account of the platform, personally I experienced many of the same issues with the platform initially but gradually changed my opinion and started to enjoy using the platform, realising its true value is in the collaborative nature in which every user is encouraged to share their information to enable all users to learn from each other. The comparison of Wikibooks to social media sites is very interesting and not something I ever considered during my time with the platform. This account is very well written and flows into each new point effortlessly, keep up the good work Matthew and I hope to see you out in the Wikibooks community soon! Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 22:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Scott, I appreciate you taking the time to read my work! Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 22:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion Section
Comment - Hi, this article seems like a very interesting read as it raises interesting points about technological determinism that i had not come across before. Peters idea that determinism can be viewed as a way to disprove certain theorists is intriguing. As we are working on the collaborative essay together, I believe there is a lot in this article that would benefit our overall research into determinism, such as applying Peters idea to important theorists in determinism such as Mcluhan. Overall, this is a very good article that raises interesting points which I would most likely reference in the Determinism collaborative essay. Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 21:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks man! How have you been getting on with researching for your part of the essay? I've done a bit of reading and I have some rough notes but I've not really got that much concrete just now. Was just wondering to get a gauge of how other people are doing. Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 21:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, for those notes do you think that we should be putting our rough work into the collab page as well? On the one hand I really think it'd help show that we've done the work or whatever but then on the other hand it'd be VERY cluttered. I might actually just make a notes section here on my own page just to make the collaborative one a bit more polished and accessible. Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 22:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Im basically at the same stage as you just trying to bring all my notes together, are you thinking of using the ideas suggested by Peters in this article and discussing them in your essay ? Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 22:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Well my section is mainly focussed on McLuhan and other Technological Determinists. In short, maybe. The article isn't particularly a defence of technological determinism? but more of like a condemnation of the acts of disregarding promising academic thought off of the basis of determinism. Like the article doesn't say that determinism is inherently correct, it just says that it's not as damning as other scholars would have us believe. I might make some reference to it, and whilst it helped significantly to define a decent essay question I feel as though there are other articles that may be more fruitful in the section of the essay which I am writing. Kjartan is writing his section on "In Defence of Determinism" so I would say it'd be more suitable to his aims than mine. Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 22:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point and i believe the content will prove useful in the collaborative essay, I am curious, what is your stance on Determinism ? Do you believe it to be as influential as some theorists claim it to be ? Also do you agree with the way in which it is seen as silencing certain theorists ? Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 22:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I feel like sometimes an oversight can be justified. For example, in philosophical thought, oftentimes hypotheticals are used in order to consider the merit of an argument. So regardless of whether or not determinism is true, working from the hypothetical situation that it would present MUST lead to some seriously untouched ideas and reasoning. The reason these are untouched is because the second somebody assumes determinism, they will be discounted and discredited by these silencing theorists that you mentioned. I wouldn't condone that as a progressive or helpful situation myself. What do you think? Do you have anything to add? Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 22:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with the way in which academic theories can be discredited by Determinism, instead I think Determinism can be used in conjunction with academic theorists when possible, would you agree ? Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 19:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I think that's fair to say. I have to admit, wikibooks is kind of growing on me. Felt pretty unworkable and outdated to begin with but it's really not that bad. Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 19:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

same really, it can prove to be useful in contributing towards other people’s work in a way that results on everyone gaining more knowledge on a subject such as this discussion we engaged in has gave me more information on Determinism that I may not have looked at otherwise. Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 00:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Good chat man, good luck with your part of the essay! Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 10:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

thanks you too ! Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 10:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

What a wholesome thread. I for one, hate Wikibooks with every inch of my soul. I understand it could be useful, but so could peeing on yourself if a jellyfish stung you and I don't particularly want to do that either if I didn't have to.

That being said... I liked your annotated bibliography! Keep up the good work and I hope your collaborative essay is going well! My group hasn't met yet but I feel as if we are all hopefully on track (we'll find out soon, I guess)

Digitalmediafiend (discuss • contribs) 20:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The article you found takes a very interesting approach to determinism, which I enjoyed! It is rare that you find an article openly criticizing academic researchers. Having an opposing point of view on a topic is always useful, as this article seems to provide. I'm glad your group is adapting to the Wikibooks platform! So far I've found it a bit frustrating, but the more I use it, the easier it seems to be to use, although I'm not sure it would be my first choice of platform. In particular, I find navigating Wikibooks a bit difficult, but I'm glad we've all worked it out. Mom00107 (discuss • contribs) 15:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. And to further the discussion, I feel like it must be mentioned that there are many people in the world with pee fetishes who would cherish your proposed action. Similarly, there are a multitude of people who would be delighted to use this platform I am sure (I am not necessarily saying I am one of those people.)

And I would agree that there is a poor user interface, thank you for reading the article, I feel as though it raises some pretty interesting points! Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 21:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: DISCUSSION, ENGAGEMENT, CONTRIBS

 * Engagement on discussion pages of this standard attain the following grade descriptor for contribs. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this will give you a clearer idea of how the grade you have been given relates to the standards and quality expected of work at this level:
 * Poor. Among other things, poor contributions 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.

Students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.


 * Although this was not the case here, you posted several relevant contribs and these were registered over the coure of a number of days. I note the tendency to log in once or twice per week for three weeks. These were occasionally significant entries in terms of moving the project forward.

Evidence from contribs to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of editorial activity as evidenced through ‘contribs’). These are primarily considered for quality rather than quantity, but as a broad guideline: o	Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial” o	Items on a contribs list that are <1000 characters are important, and are considered in the round when evaluating contribs as a whole because of their aggregate value


 * A large-ish number of smaller contribs, plus a small number of contribs that are deemed either “substantial” or “significant”. However, some of these entries (on 3rd April) are largely moving instructor comments around on the page, so these precluded a number of “substantial” contribs from being counted towards a grade.

•	Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages o	Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration o	Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay o	Evidence of peer-review of others’ work


 * Some evidence here of providing project support for your team mates, and discussion of ideas. Also so evidence of peer-review dotted here and there.

•	Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages o	Clear delegation of tasks o	Clearly labelled sections and subsections o	Contributions are all signed


 * Some in evidence – this discussion page was actually one of the best organised in terms of formatting and organisation.

•	Civility. Your conduct is a key component of any collaboration, especially in the context of an online knowledge-building community. Please respect others, as well as observe the rules for civility on wiki projects. All contribs are moderated.


 * You conducted yourself well as far as the material evidence goes.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is in relation to the making criteria as outlined in the relevant documentation, it should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band overall.

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.


 * Some very good, reflective work at play here. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and (especially for this, perhaps, the Understanding) criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets. Less instrumentally, and more in relation to this particular work, you have made the effeort to think through what the platform’s affordances are, and to try to engage with these. I would have liked to have seen a little more engagement with the wiki functionality and markup language, as this would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would have made a considerable difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are especially good. I like that you have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!) and also that you have engaged in discussion in an open and critical way (that is to say, you've responded to what other people are saying and are contributing meaningfully to discussion - arguably the civic element of wiki that you ought to be thinking about, which you clearly are).

General:
 * Reading and research: this is evidence of critical engagement with set materials, as well as evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material. Although especially visible in the annotated bibliography exercise, this is evidence in various places.


 * Argument and analysis: this is perhaps the strongest element of your work – you have really tried to get a grasp on wiki as a platform and as a community, and the way you articulate this evidences that you have begun to realise this to a large extent.



• Presentation: use of wiki markup and organisational skills, see above comment, this could have been much better deployed.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)