User talk:Mhairisedgwick

Hello this is my user discussion page, I will be using this to register my work for the WikiBooks project and also to complete my educational assignments. Please feel free to leave comments here. Mhairisedgwick (discuss • contribs) 15:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise Number One: Educational Assignment
Emily Skye is one of many health and fitness experts who is able to spread workouts and lifestyle tips through her use of the media. She has Various accounts on social media and websites which can be easily accessed and allow instant communication with her fans. This instant access allows her followers to keep update in an instant with her methods of health eating and workouts. The easy access to comments pages and interactive content allows connection to be created between like minded people who can work together to achieve their goals. This interactivity is extremely relevant to our module of study in the sense that people can create changes to their life through an online platform, and have instant access to others who are having similar issues. https://www.emilyskye.com/fit/index/GA?gclid=COKlor_d_MoCFUqeGwodkGkOZg Page is the perfect example in how an online platform can have physical effects on peoples lives. She has Facebook platforms as well as media such as Snapchat and Instagram so her reach to the public is at a maximum. her use of photos and videos posted give visual tips and workouts which can be easily mimicked in the real world https://www.facebook.com/emilyskyemodel/?fref=ts.

Lifestyle bloggers and health experts use the media more and more to reach as many people as they can. http://fitnessontoast.com/ Is a great website where by you are given great healthy meal ideas, as well as alternative exercise options to the gym. As well as nutrition tips and even fashion. She is a personal trainer from Sweden and blogs about her healthy lifestyle. This relates to the module when thinking about the idea of online identity, and how she has been able to build up a network of followers through the content that she displays online. The vast multitude of people online are able to reach these platforms as well as relate to others through interactive sections who are going through the same thing, or have similar interests. http://www.carlyrowena.com/ is another great website and contains similar tips and lifestyle suggestions for a health way of living. All of these relate to the module In the way they build their identity online and get us to think about our own lifestyles, both on line and in real life. Mhairisedgwick (discuss • contribs) 11:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
This post describes something that you enjoy and uses relevant wiki markup, but could include more critical engagement, which will be more important in future exercises. Think through how this could link more directly to the module's themes. Avoid generalisations such as the first sentence of paragraph 2 - this requires evidence (How many people? What do you mean by media?...). Also make sure to follow all parts of the exercise: you have not posted comments on colleague's pages. Engagement is an important part of the portfolio, so make sure to do this in future.

A post of this standard roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor: 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. Sprowberry (discuss • contribs) 10:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 3:Information Overload!
information available on the internet, how can you not be distracted? On a whim you can research your next holiday or connect with people you haven't seen for years. All in all the internet is an extremely powerful tool and the possibilities are endless when it comes to what you can do Online today there are literally thousands of articles relating to every different topic imaginable, to sift through this vast quantity of information and find what is actually relevant to what you are looking for can be challenging. The internet came about through a mixture of different reasons and now has a vast commercial power which is very easy to become distracted by. In this age with cookies which capture what you have been searching and then target specific ads at you might find interesting, it is very easy to get distracted and the internet in a way does its best to do this. In order to avoid being distracted by this we need to first understand how they work. " Typically, cookies store information on how you've used a web site - your online activity." By doing this the website is able to understand how there users interact with their site, as well as being able to personalize or refine what pops up online when we log on. The best way to avoid this is to simply be aware of it and not necessarily read into everything we see online. When searching the best way to tackle online distraction is to be refined as you can in what you type into the search bar. Keeping various windows open at once can also be distracting, and sometimes the best way to prevent this is to keep to a minimum the number of websites you are using at any one time. When you have unlimited access to the infinite with the internet.

Out of the large volume of information that is out there, a large chunk of it can be misinformed or inaccurate. So how do we decipher between the useful and the not so useful? it is important to always make your searches online very refined. despite this, the internet is a window for instant information at the click of a button. To tackle this, we have to proceed with caution and until verified presume that the information online is not necessarily accurate. The Gurdian highlights a helpful handobook to refer to http://verificationhandbook.com/ which is helpful in providing a guide in how to avoid getting distracted or mislead by false information online. This is a very good way of tackling the level of information that is out there. I myself find that I tend to use the top hits when I search something online, if you scroll to the bottom of the search page there are thousands of pages of results normally and I tend to stick to the first couple of pages, I do this because they are normally the sites which suit my search criteria the most, if you start going beyond that it is very easy to find irrelevant information which can be distracting. But then I ask myself, by doing this am I limiting my research by doing this, after all a lot of the sights that come up first on Google for example, have paid to get there, rather than being their for the quality of their information.

Mhairisedgwick (discuss • contribs) 17:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Mhairi. Some great information and referencing here. Just to let you know you misspelled the Guardian but otherwise great information. You say that you only look at the top search results in Google and this could be problematic in terms of missing out information or only looking at sponsored search results, any way to combat this? Stevo sc (discuss • contribs) 14:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Mairi, great post! I particularly liked when you spoke about cookies as I never really knew how they worked but after reading this I feel more informed on the topic. I would say that cookies are something that we are all targeted and affected by, do you know of any ways to tackle this problem? I would also suggest downloading AdBlock as it is something that I have found very useful after getting bored and distracted by ads and pop ups constantly flooding my computer screen. It blocks all adverts on every website so you don't need to feel the urge to click on them, it even blocks those annoyingly long adverts that play before you watch a YouTube video which I am very thankful for as there is nothing worse than having to watch a 30 second advert on shampoo before you can watch your actual video. Kirstyyy smith (discuss • contribs) 11:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Stevo scThanks for your comments Steven! Thank you for pointing that out to me, I will go back and rectify this. http://www.tomtechtoday.com/2014/05/5-secrets-to-finding-relevant-information-online/ Here's a link that's definitely worth a look, It gives some really great tips how to find relevant information when you are online. With regards to missing out on great websites because they are to far down the list of hits, these tips will really help as everything that comes up should be relevant top your search. Mhairisedgwick (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Kirstyyy smith Thanks for your comments Kristy! yes Cookies really do affect us all, its strange to think that the adverts that come up on our computer etc. are specifically targeted at us because of the way we conduct ourselves online. There is ways of talking this, you are able to disable cookies, but a lot of sites use them so it is difficult to avoid them, but it can be done! In a way they are a good thing as the stuff that is shown to us online is more suited to us as individuals. Thank you very much, I didn't know you could do that, but will definitely look into this for the future. Mhairisedgwick (discuss • contribs) 15:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mhairi. I really enjoyed this article and found it to be one of the most informative ones I have read on this subject. For once a vast amount of information has been a good thing! I found it very concise and straight to the point and again ,the referencing was well done. The only advice I could give when searching for certain topics is to use as many key words as you can. That way you are aware that the things you are going to be looking at are relevant to your topic, instead of just using top search results. SophieNHayes (discuss • contribs) 10:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

SophieNHayes Thanks very much Sophie, I am glad you found my post informative! Yes I have found key words to be very important, and will definitely use this when searching next time! Mhairisedgwick (discuss • contribs) 10:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 2: Visibility and Online Footprint
Social media is a vastly popular platform which is growing every day, in 2014 71% of all online adults were on Facebook. To an extent, our visibility online can be as much, or as little as we would like it to be, but this does not always work out in practice. For instance a Facebook account can be set so as little or as many people can see your contents you would like. people are able to use social media as a marketing platform, or simply as a way of connecting to people. But we have to stop and ask ourselves are we ever sharing to much? Levels of visibility differ from person to person, for example hundreds of photos of myself and my friends are accessible online as well as my date of birth, where I live and where I go to university and anyone who wishes to, can access this. http://cis.poly.edu/~ratan/facebookusertrends.pdfy is an article giving a deeper insight into the social media platform of Facebook. We need consider the safety of this and question once we put information about ourselves out there on social media,can we ever get that information back?

When I think about my own visibility online, I wonder how visible I actually am? I share a lot of my content online with only my friends, to prevent people I don't know from seeing what I am posting. But will I ever really know how many people who are not my friends have the potential to see my online content? In all honesty, for a girl in the 21st century social media is not that big a deal for me, yes, I use Facebook and snapchat, but I am not active on twitter, tumbler, my space, Instagram or any other networking platforms, I even went a good few months without a phone, so how can I really be that visible online? My Facebook profile is private, However my friends have the opportunity to share anything that I post online with their friends and so on and it becomes something of an issue. SO even if a profile is private there is ways of information that you don't want people to see to be exposed, and you can never really be sure of what information is available to people out there. If people search you on Facebook and your profile is private they can often still see a photo of you and your full name. So although to an extent we can control our content, there is no real way of monitoring what people are doing with it and who they are sharing it with on their own profiles.

On platforms such as snapchat where you are mainly sharing images, the same can be said in that you can control information, but people can pass this on without any control from yourself. So I find myself asking, are we ever really safe online? risks range from identity theft to hacking however there are means of controlling this for example not excepting anyone as a friend or taking caution that once you put something out on the internet you cant always get it back So although to an extent we can control the information that is available to people on our social media platforms, there is loopholes and ways around this. Mhairisedgwick (discuss • contribs) 18:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Mhairi. Great referencing, can I ask how you properly referenced because I'm struggling to find information on how to do it? Also you say you only use Facebook and Snapchat, Is there a reason you don't use other platforms such as instagram? Stevo sc (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mhairi. I completely agree with User Stevo sc as I am also having difficulty to referencing in my articles and the layout of yours is great. The article you attached from get safe online was also very interesting and it makes me wonder where pictures on, for example, snapchat actually go? We can't be naïve enough to think that they just 'disappear'. SophieNHayes (discuss • contribs) 10:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

SophieNHayes, Stevo sc Thanks guys, referencing another source is pretty easy, here is a link I used to show me how to reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing_sources. Hope this is helpful! Mhairisedgwick (discuss • contribs) 10:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Stevo sc Thanks for your comments Steven! No, there is no particular reason for my not being so active on Instagram in comparison to other social media forms, its not really a big deal for me, this could be because my camera on my phone is broken, and since a camera is vital for Instagram, which is a photo sharing social media, It doesn't really bother me. This makes me wonder however, if all social media forms are accessible to everyone, people who cant afford smartphones for example? Do you think this is a limitation to media such as this? I myself do have a smart phone, but the camera is broken therefore there is not point in me having istagram, but do you think lack of smartphones prevent people from being active on social media? Mhairisedgwick (discuss • contribs) 10:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mhairisedgwick I see your point on the dependence social media is starting to have on modern technology. Your point on not having a camera or smartphone would definitely limit the use of social media platforms such as snapchat and instagram. But as technology gets cheaper and cheaper and more people have smartphones, especially in the developing world the use of these social media platforms will just rie. Stevo sc (discuss • contribs) 15:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
Working in a team can be challenging in many respects, creating challenges which is in the very nature of group work. With regards to this project, this difficulty was amplified, as we were not only working in small teams of roughly five, we had to also collaborate with over 20 others. All who had their own ideas about how the project should be undertaken, and what aspect they wanted to cover. Here we are presented with an issue which is prevalent, not just to this project, but on all online platforms. How do we ensure everyone is presented with the same opportunities and an internet hierarchy does not come into play? This is virtually impossible.

Clay Shirky presents an optimistic, yet slightly idealistic presentation of the internet and its power,. and possibly over emphasises the internet’s power for equality and equal opportunities. However we cannot overlook the fact that with this incredible network, there is an opportunity for everyone to have a voice, which without the internet would simply not be possible. Even undertaking a project such as this, allows for people such as myself, to share information or research with not only my peers, but also the rest of the internet in the blink of an eye. Enzenburg adopts an “optimistic” approach to the media whilst being aware of its oppressive negative sides and how to tackle them. On the other hand Baudrillard argues the opposite, presenting a much more pessimistic view that it can in fact restrict and open up room for negative effects, Douglas Kellner describes his approach as “technophobia and nostalgia for face-to-face conversation” Dalgren agrees with this stressing that we have to consider the element of “power asymmetries” and “inequality” as well as the more optimistic side of the internet. Therefore we can see there is much debate on this subject, and there is no easy answer.

This brings up a valid difficulty with this project, in that collaborating with so many others meant there was virtually no face to face communication, it was all done online, which presented challenges itself, and naturally a hierarchy was created, with some natural leaders taking over. I was out of the country when this project was getting underway and had no access to wifi, so I was presented with a challenge straight away, how will my ideas be presented? I had to therefore adapt when I came back to fit in with what the rest of the groups were doing and fit in my ideas with theirs. To communicate across groups we reached out via the discussion page, which was a key tool for sharing information and ensuring that everyone had a part to play.

Collaboration with my own group however was much easier, I found links on how to reference and general tips on how to use wikibooks and formatting and I was able to share with my entire group through our user discussion pages. As well as this, we had regular group meetings to discuss what we were doing, and also how we were getting on with our individual sections, sharing concerns and working through any issues together.

When working in such large numbers, the management of the quality of our work was difficult to control, however the collaborative nature of wikibooks ensured that we could all edit and add to each others work. This is an issue with the platform as a whole however, as anyone can add to wikibooks, meaning quality and accuracy may sometimes be questionable. To control this within our smaller group, we all read over and checked each others sections before they were published, to ensure there were minimal errors.

Formatting was the biggest challenge for me, I had never used wikibooks as a platform, so it was all a learning experience, and with the hands on nature of the module, we were encouraged to actively seek answers to our questions online, rather than becoming reliant on tutors, which made for a more active learning experience. Communication is the key thing that I have taken from this project, the collaborative nature of this project mirrors the collaborative nature of the internet, and for that reason it has been a very interesting learning experience of digital media. Mhairisedgwick (discuss • contribs) 15:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment
I completely agree with you when you say it is almost impossible to avoid the formation of a hierarchy online. As you mentioned, lots of theories about internet collaboration are very utopian in thinking that everyone will work together as a team to build on each other's knowledge and achieve a goal. In reality the Wikibooks project showed us that it is not quite that straightforward. I think a major reason for this was the individual grading of everyone's contributions and the use of the project as a piece of assessment material. Contradictory to the participatory democracy that the project was meant to be about - which emphasizes working in one's own time out of personal desire for the common good - the Wikibooks assignment became more about working for your own personal grade and less about working collectively. Furthermore nobody was working on the project out of personal desire and therefore the focus of the work produced was a collection of individual pieces rather than a collective whole. As in your case, you entered the project late and were already at a disadvantage. In an ideal situation this should not have mattered because you should have been able to edit wherever and whenever you wanted with no fear of crossing into other people's 'sections'. However due to the time limit on the project, as well as the predominant interests of everyone to get a good grade for themselves, this was not possible. This inevitably meant that the project was not quite as collaborative and communistic as it seemed it could be before we began working on it. I do agree with you that the use of Wikibooks as a site for the project, and figuring out the wiki markup, was a challenge. However I feel that because everyone was able to communicate and share info with everyone else on Wikibooks I learned how to use Wikimedia faster and better than I would have on my own, which maybe is an example of collaboration in the assignment succeeding and improving people's individual work. D man choo (discuss • contribs) 18:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This was a really interesting post, especially from my point of view, as I worked in a much smaller topic group and didn't work whatsoever in the smaller groups of five we had been assigned. Effectively you've argued that a smaller group results in a more coherent final product with less in-fighting. I couldn't agree more. As a smaller group of 14, with only 9 people having contributed with only 1 week left we had very few incidences of online confrontation. In fact I would argue that we had none. Is this because by chance we were all fantastic human beings whose personalities shine above the rest? Absolutely not. I believe it was our size. Just like in your smaller group of 5 where there was a greater understanding between members this was echoed in our core team. Even with the 9 people who had contributed, only about 5 were regularly contributing. There were flaws to the wikibook project absolutely, but I’ve struggled coming up with solutions. The smaller group suggestion you put forward would produce less animosity but the whole concept of this project was to understand mass online contribution. To understand the ideas of 'the civic web', 'collective intelligence', 'cognitive surplus'. We are used to working on groups of 5 for other module group works so this had to present a new challenge.

Also there is the debate surrounding 'group grade' versus 'individual grade.' The whole concept of individual grade seems to contradict the notion of collaboration but here I suspect the people behind the wikibook project were stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they chose to go with a 'group grade', there be present the 'free rider(s)'. To what extent this would have happened I don’t know but certainly some people would have contributed far less and got the same grade. This would be exacerbated in online work. Being asked to do something online is easier to ignore. For example, on Facebook, if you are invited to a birthday party it not at all uncommon to just ignore the invite, not responding either way. In face to face conversation, it would be deemed extremely odd to, following a birthday invitation, stand glazed eyed, staying completely silent until the other person walks away. This post also made some really great links to concepts covered in the course by looking at multiple theorists. It was interesting to see how their views contrasted with one another. MrRobot 321 (discuss • contribs) 10:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
There are clear markers of engagement in your contributions through both discussion with colleagues and your comptentence with wiki markup and relevant secondary reading. This could be improved, however, through formatting references to the same level of detail they require for essay writing. Don't just include the URL. It is more difficult to judge understanding, as your argument often lacks depth and contains generalisations such as "social media is a vastly popular platform which is growing every day". Aim to include specific examples and more detailed analysis in order to move from the descriptive to analytic.

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 suggests minimally sufficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Acceptable engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Limited reflexivity and creativity, and a somewhat insecure management of discussion pages

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 14:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)