User talk:Mom00107

Visibility In the Online World: FMSU9A4

Growing up as the Internet was born, then expanded, and watching the boom of social media, first with Myspace, then Facebook, and all the others that followed, I was always drawn to the online world. I remember waiting anxiously for the 13th birthday because I was so excited to create a Facebook page. Many of my friends and classmates already had a Facebook, and I felt strangely cut off from them without my own account.

Now years after my 13th birthday, I feel I am more visible than I should like online .I have an online presence on almost every major online platform- Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, as well as other online networking sites like LinkedIn. On each of these accounts there is a varying level of information about me, from my age, to my employment history, to my family members. While the visibility of this information on a given website is under my control through the use of different privacy features, the website at the very least demands some personal information. For example, to sign up for Facebook, a date of birth must be submitted. I share basic information on each page- my name and sometimes my birthday. It depends on the platform in regards to what I am willing to share. I don’t want to be an Internet celebrity by any means; the main purpose of my social pages is to connect with friends, so I share what is necessary for a new friend to determine that a page belongs to me.

Clay Shirkey discusses this idea in part of his book, Cognitive Surplus. He states “When we use a network the most asset we get is access to one another. We want to be connected to one another, a desire that the social surrogate of television deflects, but that our use of social media actually engages.” This is the thesis of why we all use these online platforms. Engaging with each other is a basic human desire- nobody wants to feel left out and online communities allow us to bridge gaps we may be unable to in real life. The “rules” of a social media interface are laid out simply enough that it allows us to think, as Shirkey puts it, “you can play this game too.” While I’m shy to speak up or make a quippy comment in a group discussion in my daily life, when I get on Twitter, suddenly there a rules that I understand and a degree of separation from reality to where I can post a meme, or share a thought with limited fear of backlash or scorn.

My main hesitation in sharing personal information on different websites or social media platforms really ties back to the security of my information. Despite how personal our networks within a given website or platform feels, the web is public and I’d prefer to maintain some level of privacy. Having it all out there on the web, or in some social media platform database isn’t very appealing. I know that even with a private account much of the information is still public, but it makes me feel a bit better to be able to control who has access to my accounts.

FMSU Digital and Media Culture: Annotated Bibliography
Goh, Lynette Y.Q, Phillips, J.G., Blaszczynski, A., 2011: 'Computer-mediated communication and risk-taking behavior', Computers in Human Behavior 27:5: 1794-1799

In this article, Goh and her fellow researchers performed an experiment to determine the effects on risk-taking behavior when using video links on the Internet to gamble as compared to being in person in order to study how Internet usage impacts the likelihood of taking risks. The researchers crafted their own experiment utilizing a online roulette simulation versus an in person roulette game to compare the amount of bets and riskiness of bets placed by subjects between the two services, and subsequently performing statistical analysis on the subjects behavior over a series of several rounds of each version of the game. This article, while not forming the basis of my research, could by very useful as it shows the direct impacts of the Internet on a person's behavior, and discusses how Internet usage changes collaborative works when compared to working in person. The main limitation of this article is the researchers' jump in logic when applying the results of their experiment to collaborative works; while the logic makes sense in theory, applying a gambling simulation, where the purpose of the task is to win as a individual, to working collaboratively online, when the purpose is group success, could be a stretch. As a result, more studies could be done by these researchers to study directly how collaborative online work impacts risk taking and results as compared in in-person group work. For example, how is groupthink considered in both cases? Does groupthink come into play in the online betting simulation? These are all interesting topics for further exploration that the article dues not cover, but despite this, the article opens several interesting avenues for exploration when it comes to online collective intelligence and behavior. Perhaps in conjunction with another article, this work could provide an interesting insight into individual versus group online behavior. Overall, while I will not be using this article for the base of my research, it is a good supplemental work to consider when studying collaborations online.

Comments
An interesting sounding concept for an article, particularly when considered in relation to our essay on Collective Intelligence. The effects of the visual - and potentially audio - stimuli used in gambling advertisements online can possibly be considered part of how Collective Intelligence is used by the organisations behind the gambling websites to capture the attention of users. This can be related to what Henry Jenkins says about Collective Intelligence, as he describes it as "an alternative source of media power" - not only does the gambling business have their casinos to generate revenue, but they also have the online revenue as well.

The limitations that you mention should also be taken into consideration. Could these limitations be overcome by conducting similar tests to see if the results remain consistent? But the overall ideas of the article should be very helpful for our essay on Collective Intelligence, as it does relate directly to behaviour and behavioural changes caused and reinforced by internet usage. And even if it isn't a major focus in our work, it should still be a useful resource.

fairmanfour (discuss • contribs) 10:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback!! In the article the researchers state that they ran the test subsequent times, and the results stayed consistent. However, I am unsure of how much time passed between each subsequent experiment ran, which could have resulted in an impact on the final findings. I agree that the impacts of visual stimuli is very interesting in relation to collective intelligence, especially because this study examines the direct impact. I would wonder what the impact is outside of gambling - for example, how can a video influence group online behavior when it is related to a social movement? I think you bring up a good point, relating this study to what Henry Jenkins says about Collective Intelligence; I had not even considered the impact of online gambling on behavior in relation to revenue. Perhaps we could research the comparison of money made in physical casinos as opposed to the revenue generated by online gambling in a specific game, such as roulette or poker? It could be an fascinating avenue to pursue to back up our final essay. Mom00107 (discuss • contribs) 11:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)#

This is a unique and interesting experiment. I like the idea about it though. It shows how personalities change due to the Internet and not being face to face with someone. Its crazy how not just for taking risks but also in posting information and chatting people are prone to be more risky than saying it in person. its a way to hide away i guess and in this case losing virtually is not as bad because either no one is watching or u cant see people judging you for your mistake. If the gabling even has an avatar that you can customize its not even you in the picture, its just another person who lost or won. This topic could perfectly fit in with digitalization as it shows how gambling is changing too and is going online and becoming more virtual than reality. But would this mean that the chances of becoming a gabling addict could rise? Its much easier to gable online then going to a casino. As a result this could cause a higher risk of addiction. There is a difference in touching and feeling the chips or the money in your hand and knowing that the money has gone than if its just a number on a monitor. Chrisalwayson (discuss • contribs) 16:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise Three: Collaborative Research Essay
'''These are the comments back and forth on my group mate's annotated bibliography: ''' @Fairmanfour: I think this academic article will be an excellent resource for our group moving forward in our essay research into collective intelligence and how it impacts the behavior of people in the online community. I especially like the dichotomy you discuss of toxic and benign disinhibition; because these two behaviors occur so often, yet are so polar opposite, I think they are an interesting subject matter to explore for our research. Does the author discuss what causes such different behaviors in an online space in the work? If so, that would be an excellent jumping off point for utilizing this article in particular. Additionally, does the author at all discuss the concept of groupthink? Due to our topic of “collective intelligence” I also think perhaps pulling in some research about how having others around to justify or simply agree with a person or community's beliefs increases the difficulty for a member of that community or others to speak out in opposition to it would be beneficial. It would show how collective intelligence alters behavior, and we could use examples of group toxic disinhibition and benign disinhibition to show how the online communities can foster and strengthen groupthink. Does the article bring up any specific examples of these types of communities that exemplify toxic and benign disinhibition? Again, these could be incredibly useful in continuing to pursue our research topic at large. Overall, I think this annotated bibliography is a job very well done, and you have found an excellent article for us to utilize in the continuing process of this research project. Mom00107 (discuss • contribs) 09:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC) #

@Mom00107: Thanks for the feedback. I agree that the two contrasting behaviours exhibited and discussed in the article would be a good subject for our essay, as it will provide some explanation on how certain internet behaviours are caused. The author offers some hypothesis as to why some of these behaviours occur, citing things like the anonymity of the user, which the author describes as being disinhibiting, thereby allowing more extreme behaviour - without the perceived safety of online anonymity, the user might not feel as free to exhibit the negative or 'toxic' behaviour so often found online.

There isn't much discussion of groupthink in the article, but it does include elements that might be described as being 'confirmation bias' and how it influences the openness of opinions shared online. The article also doesn't make mention of any specific examples of the benign and toxic behaviours as described in the article, but does include some descriptions of what might be considered broad, non-specific examples. And even if this article proves to not be the most helpful of articles we use, we can definitely use it as a reference point, even if it's just for an example of what other theorists think and how we might adapt it to our own findings.

@Fairmanfour: Thank you for the clarification on some of these points! I do think this is a strong article for us to utilize for our research. I wonder if we could find good examples of both types of disinhibition? That would definitely strengthen our argument, particularly in relation to collective intelligence and behavior, especially because it talks about group behavior and variations within it. I also really like the point you bring up of “confirmation bias” because I think this is a huge issue with collective intelligence and the online community, and one that we should definitely explore in relation to behavior. Mom00107 (discuss • contribs) 11:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)#

These are the comments made and my response from my annotated bibliography

@Mom00107: An interesting sounding concept for an article, particularly when considered in relation to our essay on Collective Intelligence. The effects of the visual - and potentially audio - stimuli used in gambling advertisements online can possibly be considered part of how Collective Intelligence is used by the organisations behind the gambling websites to capture the attention of users. This can be related to what Henry Jenkins says about Collective Intelligence, as he describes it as "an alternative source of media power" - not only does the gambling business have their casinos to generate revenue, but they also have the online revenue as well.

The limitations that you mention should also be taken into consideration. Could these limitations be overcome by conducting similar tests to see if the results remain consistent? But the overall ideas of the article should be very helpful for our essay on Collective Intelligence, as it does relate directly to behaviour and behavioural changes caused and reinforced by internet usage. And even if it isn't a major focus in our work, it should still be a useful resource.

fairmanfour (discuss • contribs) 10:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fairmanfour: Thanks for the feedback!! In the article the researchers state that they ran the test subsequent times, and the results stayed consistent. However, I am unsure of how much time passed between each subsequent experiment ran, which could have resulted in an impact on the final findings. I agree that the impacts of visual stimuli is very interesting in relation to collective intelligence, especially because this study examines the direct impact. I would wonder what the impact is outside of gambling - for example, how can a video influence group online behavior when it is related to a social movement? I think you bring up a good point, relating this study to what Henry Jenkins says about Collective Intelligence; I had not even considered the impact of online gambling on behavior in relation to revenue. Perhaps we could research the comparison of money made in physical casinos as opposed to the revenue generated by online gambling in a specific game, such as roulette or poker? It could be an fascinating avenue to pursue to back up our final essay. Mom00107 (discuss • contribs) 11:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)#

Wiki Assignment Four
After utilizing the Wikibooks platform for the last two months, it is clear that there are both benefits and limiting factors to the platform as a collaborative space. While it is nice that Wikibooks allows people to collaborate and work together on such a large scale, and discuss their work as it shifts and changes, I also found Wikibooks to be a tempermental, challenging workspace. As a platform, Wikibooks is designed ideally for the expansion and growth of collective intelligence; it allows people to share their knowledge, and for others to discuss and improve upon one user’s knowledge by supplementing it with their own. Users can comment back and forth to explain changes, or expansions to the information they provide with the content’s original creator, leading to more information being spread at a higher rate, and hopefully with more accuracy. Wikibooks encourages this discussion back and forth by emphasizing the visibility of the collaborative process. By simply clicking on a users name, any other Wikibooks user can see how much a person has commented and contributed to discussions on pages throughout the platform. This high degree of visibility is beneficial for group work and collective intelligence, as collaborators can easily figure out whom to comment back to in discussions on a topic. In terms of collaborative research, it is again easy to see the benefits of Wikibooks as a platform. In my own experience, it was a good platform to use, as my group could all simultaneously add our knowledge to the research we were doing, and ask each other questions as necessary, without having to meet in person. For example, our group began the process by searching for good peer reviewed articles and research studies to utilize in our collaborative essay, and we were able to ask what each article was for on the references page, simply by commenting back and forth. However, the challenge with using WIkibooks as a collaborative research platform is that it takes a while to learn how to use properly- the reply to format takes getting used to, and can be messed up very easily, making it challenging to actually discuss. The process of learning the reply to format took a bit of trial and error in face-to-face to discussions to learn and utilize properly. In addition, locating the group discussion page for the research section was difficult- our group simply thought we were to communicate by commenting back and forth on each other’s own discussion page. We didn’t realize until later on in our work that each individual topic page also included a discussion section. Despite this, I can see how Wikibooks can foster a community. Due to the highly collaborative and communicative nature of the platform, Wikibooks is almost useless when used solo. For example, our entire class was able to comment back and forth to each other, see the work each group was doing, and figure out the platform simply by utilizing the FMSU9A4 page. That page alone had over fifty other people that could be utilized for assistance and discussion on the work being done for class. By commenting back and forth with other users on this page, I was able to talk to people in this class whom I wouldn’t have been able to otherwise- people who I didn’t have seminars or computer labs with, but who’s work on assignments and discussion I appreciated. Due to the fact that Wikibooks wants to inform as best as possible, it’s users on various topics, the community feeling on the platform is strong. The discussion pages in particular create this sense of community. Commenting back and forth on work being done, and offering tips to improve research, or praise for a job well done makes the platform have an overall “we’re all in this together” vibe. Overall, while Wikibooks can be a challenging, temperamental platform, it’s high potential as a collective intelligence platform, and community feeling make it a plausible option for those trying to work together to expand the world’s knowledge.

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:
 * Very Poor. Often, contributions of this standard are quite brief, are structured poorly and are not spell-checked. They are often irrelevant, and offer little engagement with the concerns of the module or the assignment brief. Contributions of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be of a very poor standard and as a result it will be difficult for the reader or fellow collaborators to engage with the discussion.

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


 * This was clearly not the case here – although you posted 12 relevant contribs (which is actually not a very large amount at all) these were all registered over the penultimate day of the project. These were significant entries in terms of moving the project forward, and had you actually done this work over a sustained period as instructed, this would have made things much, much easier for yourself and for your group work. There’s no sense as to why you made the decision to leave this until the last minute.

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 number of smaller contribs, plus 5 contribs that are deemed either “substantial”, “significant” and one as “considerable”. However, apart from this last one, some of these materials seemed to be cut and paste using materials already posted to the page from other users? So your actual contrib to the discussion for these would amount to far less characters.

•	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


 * Not much in evidence here, I’m afraid, but what there is shows that, given time, your work could have been much, much better.

•	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 – but there is not too much to go on unfortunately.

•	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) 12:45, 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:


 * Excellent. Among other things, these entries will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. They will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. They will address the assignment tasks in a thoughtful way. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts. They will be informed by serious reading and reflection, are likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.


 * This is a very well written, thoroughly engaged series of edits and posts. Each response to exercises is both well judged and implications are thought through. Perhaps, making more use of the wiki functionality and markup 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 some difference. However, this is nit-picking. Excellent work.


 * 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 you have understood all too well the potential and power of the format. You have engaged in discussion with other users 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. You therefore show evidence of a pretty solid understanding of the notion of wiki as community. Arguably, you also understand some of the civic elements of wiki technology.

General:
 * Reading and research: evidence of critical engagement with set materials; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material. All good.


 * Argument and analysis: well-articulated and well-supported argument; evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position); evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections); evidence of independent critical ability. This in particular stands out in your work!


 * Presentation: see above comment on use of wiki markup and organisational skills.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)