User talk:Petrichorblue

This page is going to be used for several educational assignments. Please feel free to comment on my contributions here. Petrichorblue (discuss • contribs) 15:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1 (educational assignment)
Trench is a Vine account, in which the videos primarily depict the user performing music, both of his own composition and covers of other artists. The popularity of this account can largely be attributed to the fact that the user features his dog, Maple, in many of his vines.

Trench originally began with the single uniform style of framing all his vines as close ups of the instrument, usually a guitar, as he played, allowing viewers to observe the vibration of the strings up close. As well as guitar, Trench frequents instruments such as the harp, glockenspiel and mbira, and covers songs from famous artists such as The Beatles, Coldplay and Queen, as well as covering themes from popular games and films. In only very few vines – such as the account’s 600th – does Trench display his face at all, creating a far more anonymous online identity than many musicians. Instead, his dog slowly became the face of the channel. A beautiful border collie/golden retriever/sheltie mix, Maple began at first only appearing in the background of shots, but eventually becoming the main focus of the frame in many vines, and occasionally featuring as the performer herself. Some vines do not even show the instrument at all, and instead are composed of a series of serene slow-motion shots of Maple in a pleasant outdoor environment, accompanied by a piece of Trench’s own composition.

One of the account’s most popular vines with over 18 million loops (as of 17/02/2016): ‘Colors Of The Wind from Pocahontas on a Harp w/ Maple 🐶 "Have you ever heard the wolf cry to the blue corn moon?"’. In the foreground, Trench plays an excerpt from the iconic Pocahontas song on the harp, the camera close enough to the instrument that the viewer must look between the strings to see Maple in the background sitting in the sun, turning her head as an insect flies past. This vine in particular has been shared widely throughout social media, giving the account further exposure. Social media allows for the rapid, informal spread of information, and is therefore a versatile marketing tool for online content such as this.

Trench and Maple have gained some modicum of internet fame, with several articles recommending the account, such as Buzzfeed’s ‘Maple Is The Best Dog On Vine And You Need To Follow Her Right Now’, in which they praise that “watching Maple is basically a form of therapy”. Their popularity reached such heights that Trench has created a separate account just for Maple herself. Animals are notoriously popular on the internet, and without Maple, Trench's music would not have reached as wide an audience.

Petrichorblue (discuss • contribs) 11:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

COMMENTS

I myself am a big fan of this Vine account, and it's notable to see how Vines are changing the way we view videos today. You don't need a long attention span for the 7 seconds it takes to watch them, but Trench shows how it can still have a large effect on you, for example how you mentioned that it has been acclaimed to 'basically [be] a form of therapy'. The quality of the Vines are very beautiful most of the time, showing how despite it not being a long video, it can still be of very high quality. I agree with your last statement, that the Vines would not have gained much popularity without Maple. After all, dogs are very much loved on the internet, and by me. Marinieuw (discuss • contribs) 11:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
You've identified a very interesting example of the use of social media and the way in which something quite niche can gain a large audience if it involves dogs. The post is well written and makes good use of wiki markup, but it would benefit from a greater engagement with the module content. For example, you could have linked the short loop format of Vine with technological determinism. Your comments engage with your colleagues' ideas while remaining encouraging.

A post of this standard roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor: 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. Sprowberry (discuss • contribs) 10:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2
My first experiences of online visibility surrounded games such as Club Penguin, Runescape and AdventureQuest. However, I soon also became a frequent user of DeviantART in order to share my amateur work as well as give feedback to others. At 12, I first made my Facebook account in order to communicate with a potential French exchange student via a more instant method than international post, and still use it to this day.

Today, Facebook is my primary form of social media. However, I never post statuses, preferring to simply message friends and check notifications from groups and events. I have both the main app as well as the Facebook messenger app on my phone, making it easily accessible when I am in an area with wifi, though as my mobile data is limited I do not necessarily have access to it at all times. I also have a twitter, but use it to a similar effect: rarely tweeting, but occasionally checking it to see what my friends as well as the celebrities I follow have to say. Due to my lack of posting, as well as restricting personal information such as my email to private, my visibility may be considered somewhat less that that of others who use the same sites. However, due to functions like tagging, photographs of me taken by others are readily available, as are their posts about things such as our joint activities, and I am aware that most basic information about me is relatively easy to get hold of. I occasionally use Snapchat and Instagram, but not as frequently.

I also use tumblr, though through that platform I am a little more anonymous, and as such the information there is of a different nature. Saying that, my tumblr still contains photographs of me, posted both by myself and others. Petrichorblue (discuss • contribs) 04:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

COMMENTS

I think that Club Penguin was the door into social media for our generation and because we have been around it for so long we don't realise how much we share. You say that you don't post or share anything on your own account but like you said being tagged in things increases your visibility a lot but we don't worry about that because we're used to the exposure. I think that sites like Tumblr are a bit different, you can be completely anonymous on there and therefore I think people are more open. While the account might not be able to be traced back to you directly, you are still creating an online persona and making part of yourself visible. Unprofesh (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I rarely update my own Facebook either, as it seems that my friends are doing it for me by tagging me into pictures and events. I also mainly use my social media accounts to keep in contact with friends, checking with different events and groups and tasks, as well as following celebrities to see what they are up to. I think this is a completely valid way of using social media but it is rarely being discussed anywhere. By not creating our own content and having other people sort of creating it for us we might not have a lot to say when it comes to creating our public images. I find this kind of interesting because, for me personally, not posting on my Facebook wall is all about controlling my output and in that way my image but I let other people tag me in things knowing it will appear on my wall. So I am giving them the power to create my Facebook wall for me - go figure if this is going anywhere but I think it'd be quite interesting to look into. --Riinamaria (discuss • contribs) 00:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Group Discussion
Hey so if the group needs a place to discuss stuff we can go here Hi guys,so we have 10 days.do we want to discuss how to spread the work out?PetrichorblueUser:Rocketpunch7 User:evp09. Also does anyone know how to link and add references on wikipedia?

Rocketpunch7 is doing surveillance organisations I think. And to add references, use and < /ref > (without spaces between the <s) Petrichorblue (discuss • contribs)

Thanks Petrichorblue,I am going to talk about the political aspects that link technology and surveillance/sousveillance.Good luck guys.

Wiki Exercise #3
There is a vast sea of information at there, and distractions are all too easy, with a particularly strong impact on young people. Though it is not entirely to blame for my frequent bouts of procrastination, the fact that everything is so readily available at any given time certainly doesn't help matters.

I have several methods I use to deal with such distractions when trying to focus on a particular task. First and foremost, I attempt to restrict myself to one device. As I usually complete work and important tasks on my laptop, having my phone beside me can lead to additional unnecessary browsing, particularly as mobile apps are formatted for easy scrolling, making it easy to get lost on ones Twitter or Facebook feed. Due to 'always-on' culture, it is not only encouraged but expected of me to be able to check notifications at a moment's notice, a social pressure difficult to ignore, and as such removing my phone entirely is often a necessary solution.

On my computer itself, I have installed a browser extension called StayFocused, which allows me to block certain sites completely, or only allow usage of blocked sites for a certain number of minutes every day. Changing settings, such as removing sites from the blocked list or increasing the maximum minutes is made difficult through many amusing 'are you sure?' dialogues opened by the page, or by having to complete a time-consuming and dull task before being allowed access. When left with a limited number of minutes to use certain sites, it always surprises me how quickly I use up my allotted time, and therefore how frequently I must be going back to check on them. The act of opening up some form of social media in a new tab every so often has become an automatic action, which heavily impedes my productivity.

Unfortunately, however, it isn't just the same individual sites that serve to distract me - if something needs to be done, then even Wikipedia can capture my interest for far too long. Certainly even without an internet connection I often find focusing for any period of time impossible, and so would not place the blame for my distractions entirely on the easy access of information - more on my attention span. Though of course, Buzzfeed clickbait articles hardly help things. Petrichorblue (discuss • contribs) 03:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

COMMENTS

Hey! Really liked your post; found it very interesting. I've never considered the inherent social pressure in checking social media: I've only ever considered it a form of technological addiction, as opposed to something culturally enshrined. Food for thought in future, I reckon! Anyway, I've never considered utilising browser extensions to limit my time online. Where did you find that particular method of dealing with the quantity of information online? Were you looking for something as specific as that, or did you just stumble upon it? Finally, I like that you brought up 'clickbait' like Buzzfeed. I feel the fact that there is now information deliberately designed to be consumed for the sake of consumption is interesting. Perhaps 'Always-on' culture gone on for so long that we now need to generate quite literally anything for the sake of being online? Regardless, this was really interesting! Good work!

CaDowns (discuss • contribs) 21:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4
The wikibook project as a whole provides an interesting take on collective intelligence, with the collaborative creation of a piece of work by a large number of students demonstrating both the pros and cons of such a feat. I was working on the chapter “Surveillance and Sousveillance”, a topic I found particularly interesting.

One issue that came with the project was that there was little point in being put into smaller groups of five, when one additionally had to collaborate with the thirty or more people working on the page. Any decision come to by one group may be rejected by the page as a whole. The only benefit I can think of from having the smaller groups was ease of face-to-face discussion of the project. However, as this was not graded, whereas use of the discussion page was. Therefore, communication via the page ended up almost easier in the end, as this content was graded, and allowed discussion with other groups as well as our own.

We did, however, create subsections on our discussion page for the individual groups to communicate, as well as creating subsections for each topic so that those editing the same thing would have an easier task, and making it possible to step on as few toes as possible, a method that worked extremely well.

While wiki markup was not a particularly new or useful skill, being part of a group project on this scale with this many members was certainly a learning curve. While our book’s discussion page had less arguments than some, we still had our fair share of disagreements.

Another challenge faced when completing the project was the pressure to update small things frequently, as opposed to working on a chosen topic in private and then posting it when complete. This created conflict within the groups as different people preferred different methods of working. This also led to some individuals attempting to take a far greater share of the workload than others, being competitive in order to improve their grade.

Despite the struggles and trials that came with completing the project, however, the end result was pretty impressive. Our book was of an unexpectedly high level of detail and quality, and overall “An Internet of Everything” makes for an impressive read. Petrichorblue (discuss • contribs) 10:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

COMMENTS

This was a really good read. It's interesting how your group didn't expeience as many fights, did you notice a sort of power dynamic in the group or did you all compromise? Some other groups had a lot of problems and I thought it was just like that in every group which was actually very useful as it gives experience in dealing with difficult people. I think because there was a sense anonymity people felt like they could say/ do what they want. Unprofesh (discuss • contribs) 09:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Unprofesh (discuss • contribs) 09:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
It is clear that you picked up wiki markup as the assignment progressed. Elsewhere, your level of engagement was variable. There's evidence of relatively clustered contribs but you show a good level of engagement in the discussion. There's also a good level of engagement with secondary sources (although make sure these are fully referenced). Your contributions show a satisfactory understanding of module themes although analysis could go further.

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)