User talk:Pamela.nx

Hello my name is Pamela,and this is the page used for my educational assignment,please feel free to contribute to my page.Pamela.nx (discuss • contribs) 15:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

wiki exercise 1:Educational Assignment
This educational assignment will focus on my long-standing obsession for all things South Park and how one of the episodes may highlight the fears that David Gauntlett expresses in terms of the web becoming a place of consumption rather than creativity, resulting in it ultimately becoming an industrial tool. The concept of having an animated series that appeals to the adult viewer are not new(The Simpsons, Beavis and Butthead, Daria, American Dad etc), however, South Park has been successful in making fouled mouthed 8 and 9-year-old characters the watchdogs of our societies political and social issues.There is always a hypocritical ideology that Cartman, Stan, Kyle and Kenny(if he is alive in the episode) seek to rip to shreds.Boundaries will always be crossed.That is what appeals to me, the idea that nothing is off -limits.all aspects of society are scrutinised, all races, social classes, religious organisations: no one is immune.Many may disagree and suggest that South Park takes things too far, but what is too far when reflecting ideology?.

The show has developed a new series format, where each episode is linked.season 19 was based on the pop-up ads that show up to distract our internet space in order to promote a product or service.South Park used this storyline throughout the season to suggest how these pop-up Ads not only distract us from whatever we may find ourselves doing on the Internet but hold the power of distracting us from engaging in social and political issues that may affect our lives.The Idea that there is an Ideological underpinning in the distraction of a pop-up advert.reading an article on how the most unqualified openly biased presidential candidate is winning in the race to become president of the most powerful nation in the world and out of nowhere pops an advert for the cheapest Summer holidays up for grabs;next thing you know you are six tabs deep in holiday packages to twenty different countries.With that said, Gauntletts' fears are not unjustified.If we are less involved in producing content, the production of the web will be left solely to the devices of those in positions of power in the bid to push their content forward.South Park may have exaggerated their point of Pop-up ads taking over our brains but the ideological hypocrisy was that the internet in the wrong hands can be used to control society.an example is having no plans on going on holiday this year but somehow seeing an advert for cheap holidays and the next thing you know you are relaxing in the sunny coast of Spain. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, but what one might consider is was it really your 'choice' to begin with? Pamela.nx (discuss • contribs) 10:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
It's encouraging to see that you have linked your discussion of South Park with David Gauntlett (although a reference would be a good idea). Your writing can be quite difficult to read at times and it would be a good idea to think through what your core point is and ensure that everything sticks to that (particularly in the second paragraph). Your comments are enthusiastic and encouraging, but it would be good to see more critical engagement within this reflection.

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) 10:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments on Exercise 1.
When I was younger I watched these shows, South Park, The Simpsons ect. and enjoyed them purely for the antics of Homer or the foul mouthed nature of Eric Cartman. It was only in the last few years where I have become increasingly politically aware and interested that I have truly been able to appreciate the service they do the public in providing a platform to openly critique society in the bluntest terms and often without a large degree of subtlety regarding what the writers, disguised in the perceived childish animated cartoon genre, really think about the goings on of the world. This is something that has not been uncommon throughout history, though perhaps in the past under more extreme circumstances, for example The Canterbury Tales by Geoffery Chaucer a medieval poet is a collection of stories told from the perspectives of people from different classes of society, Chaucer manages to disguise his voice in the pilgrims accounts and we can clearly here his opinions emanating from the sometimes sarcastic way in which he heaps praise upon certain members of the pilgrimage, by doing this he critiques the church and the nobility highlighting their failings. I believe shows like South Park and The Simpsons can and do provide a similar modern day equivalent. As they have managed to create an environment where controversial political and ideological issues can be tackled without a large amount of fear of repercussions.

Concerning the episode I agree that pop up advertising ruins a lot of web pages, I often visit online sports websites to check the latest news as it is something I am interested in keeping up to date with, however I have found myself deterred by pop up advertisements as sometimes it is just not worth the hassle or risk of viruses. Other times I do find myself distracted or going of on a tandem I had never intended to. I personally have installed an ad-blocker to get around this but advertisements / the websites which rely on these advertisements are adapting to ad-blockers by withholding content until you disable the application. In this sense we are heading in a directions where when online we do not have an option whether or not advertisements pervade our screens. Funnily enough this evolution of pop-up ads was parodied in the South Park episode "Sponsored Content" when Jimmy says:

"What if I were to tell you that ads have became smarter than us, and now they're manipulating everything we do? ...It was our own fault. Mankind became tired of ads, so we kept inventing ways to make things ad-free. We even created ad blockers. That's when the ads had to adapt. They had to disguise themselves as news in order to survive."

Though presented as joke it is the reality of what is beginning to happen in the terms that the advertisements that we are subjected to are developing so we ultimately no longer have a choice whether to allow them if we want to use the webpages that they are hosted on.--DunkyNG (discuss • contribs) 00:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for presenting your point of view and sharing your thoughts on the antics of Cartman and crew.I believe that our generation can be accessed better from shows like South Park than actual political heavy weights,the crude humour accompanied with the strong political messages has allowed me and hopefully others to be more socially aware of the ideological agents present in our day to day lives.Thank you again for reading and commenting on my post --DunkyNG    Pamela.nx (discuss • contribs) 18:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

eductaional assignment 2:My online footprint
The online footprint /identity, something that everyone is assumed to have in 2016.7 years ago this would've been a completely different write up than what it is going to be now.Facebook was at its height of popularity, twitter had just started catching on.Blackberry messenger had got everyone buying blackberries(BIG MISTAKE), and I was on every social media platform that I could click my fingers on.One could say that my footprint was larger than life.Multiple platforms, multiple personalities? There is a question as to why we don't just pick one, why do we have to be on all social media platforms.Is it possible that we interact differently within each space, therefore, adapt our personalities accordingly?

Anyway, I have since that time deleted Facebook and twitter, blackberry is nowhere to be found and I spent the last 3years absolutely social media free. Which was interesting because I found out as I went on deeper in my social media diet, the more socially aware I became.I began to notice the way people were constantly attached to their phones.No one could raise their heads anymore to have a conversation.I became the friend in the room who was always talking to herself, and got delayed responses from those I was with.Almost the same way you would if the connection was bad on your phone.Meeting new people was also interesting.whenever I met someone, the first thing they would ask about was what social media platform I could be reached on.when I would reluctantly tell the I was a human with no social media attachments, the haunted and often confused faces were guaranteed every single time. Carl Jung a Psychologist says that persona is determined by virtual interaction, therefore, things happen in the real world but in order for people to get a perception it has to be documented in the virtual.If it happened in the real and was not documented in the virtual, the skeptic as to whether it happened in the first place.The symbolic world has taken precedence over the natural world.During my time away from social media I felt the perception was that because I was not virtually present, I was not physically present.The observations I made during this period seem to also support computer scientist Jaron Lanier ideas about how technology changes people.Technology has become an extension of self or even a definition of self.At first, I felt a slight embarrassment whenever someone was alarmed by online absence almost as if I was committing an offence.gradually I became empowered by the fact that I still have basic human skills outside of my fingertips.I know how to have a conversation.

I have been gradually re-immersing myself into the social media pool.it has been interesting/horrendous.I feel like a 90year old woman who was trapped in the 1920s whenever I try using any social media.I have a snap chat and Instagram, which I realised are both more voyeuristic than they are interactionist.I find that I'm more lazy with my social media, after years of observing people being anti-social in social spaces.I have attached that to my social media behaviour, I rather observe people using social media on social media platforms than participate.Also, I think having the whole world serve as peer pressure to get back into it, is also what has added to my lack of enthusiasm for it all.I now have WhatsApp due to the fact that people can't get a hold of me otherwise(even though I have a working cell phone number).we will have to see how that goes as I will actually have to speak to people on there.The saga continues...

Pamela.nx (discuss • contribs) 12:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

WIKI ASSIGNMENT 3:Information Overload
The information age is truly what we are living in.Easy to access and quick to dispose of.The always-on culture that we have adopted through technology and our use of social media have allowed us to constantly be bombarded with information.The unlimited access that technology has allowed us means we no longer have to rely on the seven o'clock news to recap the day, we receive information instantaneously as it happens.This should be a good thing, however, we are subjected to so much information in a day that our attention span has been altered to move on to the next thing.The speed at which we receive information has also become the speed at which we retain information.The access is so easy and quick that we are slowly becoming desensitised.

Information overload means the power of distraction.The idea that information can 'trend'simply showcases the culture of distraction that has been created.If we look at technology as a political tool, then information overload cannot be a good thing for the general public. If we are making the content and distributing the information, we are in control,we are creative,we are engaging, however, If the web becomes a place where we are just consuming the information rather than creating then we are subject to becoming pawns of a political agenda.Therefore, the overload of information becomes a power tool used by industrial agents to distract from what is important.

The best way I counteract information overload is to strip back the information, by identifying what is of interest to me and not just what is trending and being able to constantly form critical engagement with information and not just accepting it as it is packaged.The danger of information overload is that we lose the ability to be critical of the information because we are too busy consuming and receiving that we do not stop to consider the source of the information.Which is important if we are to remain active participants in the web.

Pamela.nx (discuss • contribs) 10:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments
The point you made about how our attention span has been affected by being subjected to the mass of information is interesting as I definitely feel the more information there is, the more overwhelmed I feel. This, therefore, means that I am more likely to avoid the information and distract myself on social media instead of focusing on a task. But even on social media I am bombarded with information, so it can be hard to get away from. However, an easy way to combat this is only following those whose information is of interest to you, and, like you said, strip back the information. Another way I use to strip back the information is by search engines such as Google as I find it a simple and easy way of quickly whittling down information. However, even still, the responses to the search can be as overwhelming as the information itself due to the sheer volume of it. For example, a Google search of "information overload" produces 14 000 000 responses. Furthermore, it is hard to distinguish between information that is correct and information that is incorrect on the internet as anything can be written or edited. For example, this is the case on Wikipedia. In what ways do you strip back the information available online to only view the information that is of interest to you and to avoid feeling the information overload? -Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 19:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Your analysis of the "always-on" culture in relation to information overload is very astute, I cannot agree more that the speed with which we receive information has led to a culture that is constantly looking for the next trend ,to the extent we actively wonder what the next "meme" will be, our retention of information is brief and important matters which were in the news one day are forgotten the next. I have found myself annoyed with news reports which often encourage this kind of culture; giving constant updates for a week until the next great catastrophe comes along, a month later they will come back to the plight of the people in that foreign country, to me, it makes their lives seem only important for a small amount of time. As you say this is also worrying politically because what seems a big issue one day will be forgotten the next our retention of information or interest cannot stand the barrage we receive in terms of information overload. Governments and corporations will continue to sneak laws or brush things under the carpet due to the swiftness with which or minds turn to other matters. The only politician under constant scrutiny by the general public right now is Donald Trump, and that is due to an internet trend of ridiculing him in as many funny ways as possible; the other day I saw him edited in to Game of Thrones - he did not look out of place. However my point is, like yours, that a culture has been created by the abundance of information and being always connected to that stream of information where we can no longer focus on one thing for a substantial amount of time any longer. This is worrying both politically and socially because we can not seem to identify when we should pay attention to an issue for a longer period of time, and even if we can, now our natural inclination is to dismiss it until it gets flagged up again by the news or a notification. --DunkyNG (discuss • contribs) 11:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Exercise 4: Wikibooks project reflective account
The Wikibooks project that was based on collaboration and engagement was at first very confusing.Firstly,because throughout my academic career anything involving wikipedia had been shut down and shut out. secondly,It was rather challenging to grasp the idea that we would now be focusing a whole project on how we interacted within this famously 'unreliable' space.

Engagement
Engagement was highlighted as one of the main outlines of the project.we were to collaborate in sub-groups of 5, which would ultimately contribute to a book which had 20 other collaborators.Even with engagement as the main criteria of the project,at first, it seemed to be the hardest quest to fulfill. 10 days before the project was due to be completed,there had been no online or offline engagement within my sub-group.This lack of interaction and engagement with each other and the project was showcased when the lecturer pointed out the pages that had the least amount of content and discussions. 'Surveillance and Sousveillance' was the page that had the least amount of work done compared to the other pages.The participation was lacking for the whole surveillance and sousveillance 25 member team,but the embarrassment of being the most unproductive team 10days before the deadline proved to be exactly what we needed.

I stopped focusing on trying to rally the group together in order to discuss content and outline and rather went on to the discussion page to begin engaging with other groups who wanted to discuss layout and content for our page.I found that through just getting on with it and interacting on the discussion page,I got a lot more work done in the remaining days engaging with the larger group than I did when trying to engage with my smaller group of 5.The discussion page assisted in giving me direction in terms of how I was going to contribute and participate in the project.

However, the downside was that although I had been adopted by the larger community,other groups still used the page to interact with each other,whereas my group was less vocal on the page. I realised that the lack of communication between the sub-group could result in two or more members of the same group writing about similar topics.another critic was that because of the dominant presence of certain groups,they seemed to take control of the overall project.This meant that the ability to contribute content was limited or changed by dominant group members.

Wiki exercises and comments
The wiki exercises were easier to do. Working individually on content was much easier for me.I knew what I wanted to write and how I wanted to write it.I did not have to consult with anyone and I felt I got the exercises done in a timely manner because of it. The ability to still engage or participate by way of commenting on other wiki members assignments.

Assistance
The hardest part of the project was trying to get the wiki markup language right.However, this is where engagement and interaction became vital for me. The assistance I got from the group members on my discussion page ultimately helped me to complete the project.I asked questions on the discussion page and received concise answers. Everyone was open to giving a helping hand,whether it was referencing,tagging,adding images or just making text bold I was assisted by the team. I tried using the reading room towards the end of the project but found the discussion page to be much more helpful and quicker to respond.

The overall project
The overall project was successfully completed.we had caught up to other pages who had started before us.Once I understood that the main focus was my interaction with the community,the project became easier to do.The project could only work with proper communication and once I realised that communication within my sub-group was lacking,I chose to communicate with the larger group which proved to be a better decision.The only critic was because there were so many of us content on our page was very repetitive.people who had started contributing last minute were adding topics that were similar to what was already on the page or using different wording to say the same thing.

Theoretical links
The civic web The wiki project was a good example of David Gauntletts' idea of harnessing the collective abilities of an online network,to make a powerful resource or service available.What we did was to put together information in order to inform about different aspects of surveillance and sousveillance in society.This collective activity although flawed,resulted in the creation of a whole book that we can all be proud of.WE have contributed to the civic web,we have become participants and not just spectators/consumers.which like Gauntlett says,brings about a political value.

Collective Intelligence The 'Wisdom of crowds' ,having a large group of people meant that work could be distributed accordingly,it meant that we would have a mixed group of people who knew what they were doing and those who did not know what to do,and because of the engagement aspect of the project,this meant that those who were for example familiar with wiki language mark-ups could assist those who were not familiar.The exchange of information on the discussion pages showcases James Surowiecki's idea that collective decisions and exchanges are better than single member contributions. However,collective intelligence does not account for the fact that within the group there are still power dynamics and opinions that will over rule others within the group.There is also no account of the fact that although we all come together to share knowledge,the time constraints involved with getting everyone to contribute can sometimes be more of a hassle than its worth.

Final Thoughts
The project overall was a great experience. I enjoyed seeing the final project come together and although it was tough at times I was proud of everyone who contributed to making our page what it became.The idea of coming together to create is one that does bring about the notion of 'power to the people',we can't afford to leave the web to those that use it for consumer purposes but we must participate and contribute to the civic web to remain active members especially in the age of media convergence.If technology is becoming more collective,so should we. Pamela.nx (discuss • contribs) 11:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments:
Hey, I find your reflection on the wikibooks project interesting as it is very similar to my experience (who also contributed to the 'Surveillance vs Sousveillance' chapter). I must agree I also felt there was more communication between the larger group rather than within sub-groups. Furthermore, I also considered there to be a couple of members who were more dominant contributors compared to others. With this having been said, do you feel this 'power dynamic' was intimidating at times and did it affect your contributions at any point? It was also interesting to see your thoughts on the civic web and how we should all contribute to this, I agree particularly with the domineering nature of internet/media. Kyra Paterson (discuss • contribs) 08:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey(discuss,Thank you for reading about my experience with the Wikibooks assignment.In reference to your question,the power dynamics were definitely hard to tackle and at times intimidating.However,I found as time went by that I could direct my frustration into increasing my contributions by asking questions and speaking up. At times it was hard when no one responded,especially because this was essentially a task designed for us to stay engaged.Pamela.nx (discuss • contribs) 17:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
Your contributions demonstrate a good attempt at engaging with and mastering the Wikibooks platform. You integrate relevant theory from the beginning and demonstrate an understanding of a range of subjects covered in the module. You deploy some good use of wiki markup and engage with colleagues, albeit in a relatively confined timeperiod. Despite writing online, make sure that you write in an appropriately academic register and don't slip in too many informal phrases.

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 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 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) 14:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)