User talk:ReluctantCyborg

Wiki Exercise #1: Educational Project
One of the big mysteries to me about human civilization is 'how did everything get started?'. How did human beings go from effectively being animals scavenging and generally struggling to survive, to intelligent beings with houses and farms and tools and clothes? How did the first tools get made-how did the first anything get made-if it had never been done before? The Youtube channel Primitive Technology has helped satisfy this curiosity.

In videos ranging from 4 to 10 minutes, without saying a word, a man puts together primitive tools and even a hut. Using nothing more than his bare hands he makes clay tiles, benches, axes, slings and other tools. Along with being educational (but in an unintentional, interesting way, I promise!) the videos have a relaxing quality to them. It's easy to get caught up in one and want to watch more. The videos are edited to give a sense of the effort it take to put together each creation, but without lingering too long, and almost function as a step-by-step guide. While I can't say that I've memorised how to make a sling fit for hunting so that I'll never go hungry if I get lost in the woods, the videos are still an enjoyable look into the ingenious ways our ancestors began to make use of their environment.

Comments
"How did everything get started?" is an interesting question. What interests me is when did the people start thinking logically and making connections between things. After all, that is necessary for any tool making and using. Some animals like crows use tools and seem rather intelligent. Their tools are not as delicate as the ones "Primitive Technology" introduces, but they are tools. Maybe we can learn a lot about humans and their/our history by watching other animals. Sirrinari (discuss • contribs) 14:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I share your curiosities about how everything that we know today got to be the way that it is. It seems almost impossible upon looking back that cavemen rubbing sticks together to make fire developed into the colossal force that humanity is today where our biggest struggle is deciding whether it be KFC or McDonalds for dinner. The YouTube channel that you linked is very interesting and it seems to satisfy some base instincts in myself that becomes extremely content when watching something so basic being done. Watching the guy in the video doing something so instinctual really does satisfy the caveman inside. DayleCleland (discuss • contribs) 17:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
This is a well written post that has an appropriate tone and includes a good amount of wiki markup to link to relevant resources (although you should not forget to sign your exercises and comments with 4 tildes). Your comments are thoughtful and engage with your colleagues' content. One thing to look to add in future exercises is a greater engagement with the module's content and core themes.

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) 09:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Online Footprint
In terms of visibility online, I have relatively little presence. While I've made a few comments on Reddit under a username, the only information that people in reality could link back to me is on Facebook.

I try to hold back information on Facebook, ever since the site started prompting me for my school or my hometown, mainly out of spite as I resent it giving advice on what I should be telling people. Even so, I tend to share relatively little information about myself online unless prompted by others through private messaging or comments on statuses or pictures. It usually relates to personal taste in books, films or music, or adds further information regarding an event being discussed. My stubborn resistance to getting any kind of smart phone, or even one with a decent camera, means I seldom take pictures of anything. While I tell others about anything interesting that has happened to me lately, again I stick to private messaging and don't broadcast events as a status. This is not so much due to concern over privacy or control of information, and more because of personal reluctance to so openly share my day-to-day life with a potential audience that varies in closeness of relationship.

I also own a steam account, at least as much as you can own a name and a page on the internet, and use my surname as my handle. But my interaction here is of even lesser depth, as I only use the network to play games with one particular room mate and actively avoid communicating with strangers beyond the immediate demands of the game in question. Video games to me are an escape, an entertaining hobby, and less a way of speaking to people that I will have effectively no contact with outside of steam.

There is also a YouTube channel I used to post on. It's been a few year since I have done so, and it garnered little attention outside of a few close friends. I posted playthroughs of Dead Space 2 and Alice: Madness Returns. While I seldom think of the channel and don't plan on returning to it, I keep it up as I still maintain a sense of pride that I figured out the recording, editing and uploading process, even if my efforts were primitive by the website's standards.

You seem to take a relatively conservative approach to the information age, or at least the social media age, which I don't view as a particularly bad thing. I completely agree with you when it comes to almost being pressured into handing out personal details regarding your whereabouts, your age, or hometown. It's the casual fashion in which Facebook poses these questions which I've always found peculiar to say the least, if I want to divulge information regarding my whereabouts then surely I will do so; and not just that, I don't understand the relevance. In an age where essentially everything is under surveillance I view these attempts to promote a sense of online community as just an easier way to be monitored. Kurtismccallie95 (discuss • contribs) 15:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC) ReluctantCyborg (discuss • contribs) 10:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments
I find it very interesting that you have chosen to make your online visibility as limited as possible, and I often wonder if there is too much information about me floating around on all sorts of platforms. I don't really think either way is right or wrong, but I think problems can occur with the type of information some people make public. Interesting read! Carys the Hat (discuss • contribs) 14:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I really like your post and the point of view of someone who is not as present in the internet as probably most people are. I was just wondering if you think, that even though you keep most of your posts and messages private, that even those information could be saved and somehow out there in the internet? Still I'm impressed that you can be this resistant regarding smartphones, since it appears to me that society tells people otherwise and that alot of stuff nowadays is managed via platforms like whatsapp. What do you think about that? --Handkel (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Handkel, Firstly, thanks for your comment. Secondly, I would not be surprised that even my "private" messages are saved and still exist somewhere on the internet. Perhaps it's just been too long since I read "1984", but it does not really bother me. I doubt any such messages are easily accessible for people I know and I doubt anything I've written, even over the years, would be of much interest to a total stranger. Thirdly, my thoughts on the prevalence of smart phones in our day-to-day lives are conflicting. My biggest gripe would be that it seems almost insane people would spend the amount of money they do on the things just for the sake of fashion or to seem up-to-date. I certainly don't agree with the idea that a smart phone is an essential purchase, or with the encouraging of such ideas. Yet if people want to buy them then that's their decision. I can definitely see the use in smart phones and the entertainment they can provide. Perhaps I would feel more strongly opposed if I did not live with smart phone users and can still benefit from their use without having to own my own device. - ReluctantCyborg (discuss • contribs) 01:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload!
Thanks to the development of the internet and the ease of browsing, it is easier than ever to access a wealth of information. That is not to say that such information did not exist before hand or was inaccessible (at least not the majority of it). That being said, there is a great deal more information that is representative of the individuals using the internet’s resources and commenting on or contributing to them. Content is easier to produce and distribute, information can be generated and replied to quickly, the internet is immensely democratic in allowing so many different view to come through. How can anyone deal with this then?

In my own experience, in order to cope with the abundance of information that is out there, I limit the areas that I draw information from. This is not an uncommon method. If I were to look up information on a general topic, I would not use every search engine or explore every link. I scan the first page of a Google search, usually for a Wikipedia entry, then leave satisfied or move on. If I find myself looking for more subjective information, I look for specific subreddits on Reddit or even YouTube videos on the topic. Even if I fail to find what I am looking for, I tend to consider it a lost cause rather than a justification for sifting through websites and links that I would not normally visit.

One reason for this would be the comfort of familiarity. In the same sense as technology can suffer from lock-in, I can become attached to the layout and customs of a website as to see no need to find an alternative. For example, while a number of YouTube channels I follow also have Twitch channels, I do not follow them on that website. This is partly because I am unfamiliar with Twitch’s layout and so find it more difficult to use.

Another reason is related to an entirely different factor that decides which areas of the internet become preferred sources; the needs of the user. To return to the YouTube-Twitch example, I cannot set aside time to sit down and watch a live video without neglecting my responsibilities. It does not fit into my schedule and I prefer the freedom of being able to pause and return to the content at my leisure. In this instance, technology allows for at least two different forms of broadcast (live and pre-recorded) and I have chosen the format that suits me best.

While the average internet user is effectively at the mercy of whatever the standard is when it comes to handling information, the democracy of the system does tend to grant them greater choice in choosing sources and formats that suit them.

ReluctantCyborg (discuss • contribs) 13:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments
I really liked your conversation about lock-in in relation to this concept!! It's such an interesting way to think about this - that people, just like technology, can get "locked-in" to specific websites and sources of information. We learn to trust that source just by repeated viewings (even, sometimes, after it's proven to be not as credible as other websites) because we're familiar with the website and its authors. This could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the information. I also really do relate with the connection between Youtube and Twitch - I don't watch people on Twitch often either. It doesn't seem necessary to move websites despite liking the content produced on the other site. We're too deeply entrenched (or, as you say, "locked-in") to the mechanisms of specific websites. The overload of information provided doesn't seem as pressing when we stick to a few comfortable websites instead of chasing information across the depths of the internet. In my posting, I talked about something similar to this by mentioning that there is a lot of information and a user must have the self-control in order to choose only what seems to be the most relevant to his/her topic or interest. Your final point relates with mine, but you touched upon usability which I hadn't thought of. This is a good post - brief but to-the-point! I'll have to start thinking a bit differently about information overload in the future. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 15:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a really interesting take on the overload of information. I definitely approach looking for information the same way, I start out with a search for general information, often on Wikipeadia, and then, if I feel the need, I look at other results on Google. I don't often use YouTube for information, I generally watch videos for leisure. I definitely relate to the idea of familiarity with formats, I tend to stick to reliable sources I have used before, unless I am really desperate and need to search elsewhere. Carys the Hat (discuss • contribs) 17:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikibook Exercise: Assessment
The Wikibook project was an interesting experience, especially in terms of the form of collaboration that took place. At first, the project is daunting. When such a large group of people are expected to coordinate themselves and create such a deep overview of a topic, there is an uncertainty on how to start. With no prior experience undertaking such a task this is especially true. These issues are only intensified when the key means of communication are a digital platform that was not designed for communication, at least not in the same sense as in social media. This is where the offline, face-to-face communication proved most beneficial. It was much easier to work around and with others when there is live feedback and an opportunity for people to lead or direct others. As in most collaborations, good leadership is essential. However what is unusual in this case is that work is strictly voluntary (obviously we needed to undertake the task for the module but this is only a motivator for work). Instead, leadership in this context manifests as being the first to make a move; leading through deeds rather than words. It can be initially frustrating when it feels as though you are announcing what you are doing on the project and get no response, but it is a necessary process that someone has to undertake.

Jenkins’ ideas are crucial when assessing the wikibook project, as all the core requirements of participation are met. Despite the unusual format, everyone taking the course has used a key board and roughly understand academic writing. There is no major barrier to contribution. There is also the possibility for those with experience to share it with the rest of the group. Despite the clunky-ness of the format, it is easy to link others to sources of information or explain how something is done. In the worst case scenario, we can simply examine the source of someone else’s work to see how they formatted their work. Considering the compulsory nature of the project, there is also a feeling of support from group mates and that any contribution made is a step closer to completion, no matter how small. Finally, even if we do not meet every single person working on our project, we still read their messages, see their work, and understand that we are all working together towards a common goal.

The project is also unusual for the opportunity for peer review. Providing that a contributor is open with what research they are undertaking, anyone working in a similar domain can direct them towards appropriate reading or fill in information that they have neglected. The entire group can also see exactly what work has been done on the main page. Yet unless someone makes a glaring error, there is a reluctance to comment on another user’s work. To do so requires an understanding of an area outside of your own and without offering constructive feedback, there is a possibility of appearing overly critical. Even if constructive feedback is given, you run the risk of appearing like a control freak micromanaging the project. The stressful nature of the project does mean that you just want to get things over and done with, and the ease with which your contributions can be singled out means it can be easy just to let people get on with what they are doing and merely worry about yourself. While it is possible some students took pride in their project as a whole, I feel it is unlikely the majority will see it as anything more than something that needed to be done to get a decent grade.

ReluctantCyborg (discuss • contribs) 10:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments
This is an interesting analysis of the project. I definitely agree with your experience, especially how you describe that the first person to make a move becomes the "leader" which was an interesting development that I definitely noticed. It was also interesting how you described the opportunity for peer review as well. Do you think our contributions would have been better if there were more people offering feedback on each other's sections? Overall I think we did a good job in collaborating with a wide range of people. Carys the Hat (discuss • contribs) 10:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The project was definitely interesting, I will give you that. From the very start it was a very daunting task in that there was a lot to do and research for each individual area. With everyone that was contributing it made it a lot easier when everyone was assigned to a different area of the book. With the finished product itself, I think it was very well done, well researched and presented and everyone done their part! It made it a lot easier when everyone was contributing on the discussion page to bounce ideas back and fourth off each other. Spedlow (discuss • contribs) 14:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
You show some good attempts at using the Wikibooks platform and have experimented with various aspects of wiki markup. There's clear evidence of a prolonged engagement with the exercises and chapters with a good level of interaction with colleagues in building the chapter. You also took on the vital role of proofreading the chapter near the end of the assignment. While the exercises featured some interesting reflections, they would benefit from a more concrete tie back to module themes to show a greater level of understanding.

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) 14:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)