User talk:Riinamaria

This is my wikibooks discussion page. This is a part of my assignment for a university module. Engaging with the content on this page is encouraged. Riinamaria (discuss • contribs) 14:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise One (Educational Assignment)
Comedy Bang! Bang! is a weekly improvisation comedy podcast broadcast by Earwolf podcasting network that has been airing since March, 2009. The show is available to listen for free on SoundCloud, and multiple mobile apps, including Earwolf's own HowlApp where listeners of the show are offered new material constantly. The show's host Scott Aukerman has been with the show since the beginning and has since made a tv spinoff with the same title. Out of all the podcasts I listen to, this is a personal favourite of mine.

The podcast episodes vary in length, from an hour to two hours, but they are very similar in their formula. A typical episode usually begins with an interview section where Scott takes the role of the host more or less seriously and asks questions from the first guest of the episode. This section is followed by seemingly random "characters" coming in to the studio and being interviewed by Aukerman, introducing the improvisation aspect to the show. Comedy Bang! Bang! episodes are heavily laded by inside jokes, something that the host and guests keep referring to constantly. Examples of such would be "Heynong Man" and "All joking a salad". Comedy Bang! Bang! also features many games in its repertoire, one of the most popular being "would you rather", where the guests are presented with two scenarios and they have to decide on one through asking questions from the host. The episode always ends with a segment called "Plugs" where the guests get to promote their own events. The Plugs theme song is different each week as it is made by the fans of the show.

Comedy Bang! Bang! has a large fanbase, gathered via the podcast as well as the TV show. Podcasts are a fairly new form of media and they have gathered a large audience in quite a short amount of time. Listening to podcasts requires an internet connection so that leads to a fairly active fan presence online. Podcast content gets circled around and turned into memes and articles which again reach even a wider audience. Podcasts are very online savvy as many of the content makers have a heavy presence in multiple social media platforms. For example, Scott Aukerman can be found on Twitter and Instagram. He uses these platforms to keep in contact with the fans and update on the progress of the show.

Riinamaria (discuss • contribs) 15:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

COMMENTS
It's very interesting to see how a podcast can gain such a large audience in the way Comedy Bang! Bang! has, to the point that it acquires its own TV show. This show is a good example of online visibility, especially considering podcasts have been around for a while and continue to gain larger audiences every day. I enjoy reading how you describe the show and give examples on how CBB manages to keep itself relevant and interesting- I find that podcasts are an important thing to discuss when it comes to online visibility. Marinieuw (discuss • contribs) 11:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
Your post clearly outlines why you are interested in Comedy Bang! Bang! It is well written, but would benefit from links to relevant information (the podcast, Scott Aukerman's social media accounts, etc). Given you are talking about a podcast, the post would have been enhanced through further discussion of how this links back to themes discussed in the module. Future exercises need to have a greater level of critical engagement with the material. Your responses to your classmates are thoughtful and engage with their posts.

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) 10:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise Two (Educational Assignment)
Online Visibility

I have been very active online since I was 9 years old. It started from different online gaming communities (such as Habbo Hotel and Runescape) and it expanded from there to pre-facebook social media sites IRC-galleria and ii2. By the time I got my Facebook account at the age of 13 I already had plenty of experience on various social media platforms. Many of my old sites have ceased to exist and the information I put out there has disappeared with the sites. Old blogs here and there might still be accessible as I have forgotten their existence during the years.

Today, in 2016, I still have a fairly strong online presence with accounts on Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat even though I am spending way less time on them compared to me only a year ago. I am quite transparent in my use of these sites as I do not control who is able to see and what - I only keep my personal details such as e-mails, phone numbers and addresses private. I cannot think of a reason why it is like this, but I guess I find my use of these platforms so mundane that if there is anyone who is interested to look at them I cannot be bothered to control their access. I think most of my social media accounts as private in some shape or form - Facebook is for the public me that I rarely update and nearly everyone I know is there. On platforms such as Instagram and Twitter I only have a small follower base consisting mainly of my close friends. Because of this my updates tend to be more personal and not made to attract new people to follow my accounts; they act as short diary entries that everyone has access to. For example, it is nice to scroll down on my Instagram feed and reminisce the lovely trip I made with my friends couple years ago through pictures.

There is plenty of pictures of me online, uploaded there by me or my friends. I try to keep private details private and inaccessible, but I hold no false hope that those details are untouchable or inaccessible. I am quite paranoid about the internet and yet I do very little to control my output.--Riinamaria (discuss • contribs) 23:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

COMMENTS
Very interesting post. I am curious about your paranoia regarding information about yourself online. You say that you do little to control your output. Is this because you dont feel that there are adequete measure and tools to hide information, or that you just don't utilize them? For me, I see that there are many options on facebook and other websites to hide information and to add privacy to accounts, but I still feel visible. I dont doubt that if someone really wanted to access information about me online, that they could find a way. For this reason, I just try to limit my own information sharing online so that I am less visible. It is not that I am worried that being visible is dangerous or bad, but rather I enjoy maintaining a low online profile. Overall, I find that many online platforms offer privacy settings such as facebook's, but that you have to seek them out and work at decreasing online visibility.Hlat123 (discuss • contribs) 15:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I see we both have Runescape to thank for our early online visibility. I find online gaming culture surprisingly relevant in the formation of online identity, albeit as a different sort of social media. Your remarks on Facebook privacy are interesting with regards to it being the platform for the 'public you'. I also enjoyed your comments on your personal use of twitter and instagram. I personally have no presence on either platform, but from what I understand, they do seem to serve much more diary-like functions, especially how you describe them. I can't help but wonder though, surely the best example of the 'public you' must be on twitter and instagram? While it may not be as popular as the facebook profile, it still sounds publically accessible, and the content sounds much more representative of yourself? Just a thought.

CaDowns (discuss • contribs) 10:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I find your comments about your early use of social networks interesting. Often older people complain about young people’s use of social networks, yet when I was in primary school we were encouraged to use a school-based social network called SuperClubs Plus. It taught us basic ideas about internet safety and privacy, and it was moderated to stop the kind of trolling we see on social networks today. So it seems understandable that this use of social networks as children has translated into a further reliance on them as adults.

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 10:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that I strongly agree with you about your last statement regarding being paranoid about your output but doing nothing to control it. I believe we are not fully aware of all the privacy settings that we could and probably should apply to our different social media platforms. One could argue that we are often too visible online, because there's a stigma about not being visible online. Not being visible online means you might as well not be visible offline as well. Marinieuw (discuss • contribs) 11:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC) Marinieuw (discuss • contribs) 11:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand your paranoia about the information about yourself that's easily accessible online, as I'm through a quick search a complete stranger could find out a lot of personal information about me. This is an issue in terms of security, as it may be possible for strangers to guess my security questions. However, I also find easy access to information on people - especially photos - useful and inteteseting so it would be hypocritical to dislike people accessing me. Petrichorblue (discuss • contribs) 11:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

By being online at such a young age did you ever run into problems with sexual predators on Habbo Hotel? I was on something similar called Dubbit and had people asking me for cyber sex or would openly offer me explicit details without my consent as I believe my age was displayed. I also got a lot of abuse for the fact that I had displayed that I was from Scotland. And as I was using library computers I would have been affronted if they happened to freeze on the messages I was receiving. I believe times have changed and there are increased security/privacy measures to prevent that sort of thing from happening. I like Facebook's recent updated messenger service for receiving messages you don't know from Facebook where you can choose whether or not you want to view a message from someone you are not friends with. In the past it went into an 'other' box which you would often forget to check. It was beneficial in the sense that I would receive messages from random men who had found my profile and I could have been none the wiser but a disadvantage when a woman who had found my travel pass messaged me but I didn't pick up until six months later because it went into my other box. Recently I found a girl's purse on the Uni Link bus. With that same method used by the lady, and knowing there was the option for this girl to see my message, I found her student card, typed her name into Facebook and matched the picture on the card with the a similar profile picture and saw that she went to Stirling Uni and had one friend in common. With this new feature, I was able to  message her to say that I had found the purse and it was handed into Cottrell and she received the message and picked up her purse later that day. And she said she didn't mind that I had opened her purse if it meant that I had found her. If it weren't for the girl's online presence, I would never have found her and she would have had the inconvenience of cancelling all her cards. So often an online presence can be a help more than a hindrance. HayleyJo87 (discuss • contribs) 12:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise Three (Educational Assignment)
Information overload!

It easy to be distracted by the information offered on media as it is within our reach at all times. Quickly scrolling through your Facebook feed can stretch out quite easily, as the feed is constantly updated and it redirects our attentions to different links taking us to news sites and funny quizzes and interesting articles. Having my phone on me 24/7 has proved out to be increasingly more distracting and time consuming than a couple of years ago. Knowing that I can go through my social media accounts at any time I want to distract myself is in some ways helpful, but when I have actual things to do it starts to be quite inconvenient.

Personally I do get distracted all the time to the point where I have to set myself strict limits with my internet use to battle this. These limits include me hiding my phone out of reach, turning off the internet connection or limiting my access to internet in other ways. There are useful apps/browser extensions created for this purpose as it seems to be a quite universal phenomenon to get easily distracted. One of the extensions is called SelfControl, where you can block certain cites for a set amount of time. I have also found out that just by setting strict limits to my online use, e.g. not allowing myself to look at my phone for an hour, really helps me to disconnect from the constant stream of information provided by the internet. And if all this fails, I have noticed that a brief but total break from the internet for 48 hours or so can work miracles and trivialize the actual need I feel to be on social media.

I have come to realize that I have to manage my time better, which is the reason I am restricting my internet use. To maximize the time I spend on studying for university and getting things done before their set deadlines, I have learned to avoid the internet. Scrolling through my social media platforms has come somewhat of an automatized reaction to me feeling bored so having tools to help me get rid of these habits has been really helpful. Riinamaria (discuss • contribs) 15:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

COMMENTS

 * I also use the computer application SelfControl because it helps to block out distractions on the internet. Before I got this application, I never realized how much time I was really wasting on social media or other time wasting websites while studying. With this app, every time you type in Facebook, for example, it will come up with a blocked page notification. After useing this app for a few day, I became painfully aware of how often I checked into these websites out of habit. Because there is so much information on the internet, it is easy to get caught up on a weird string of youtube videos or one webpage that ends up linking to many other interesting pages. Applications like Self Control are a great way to address this issue. I also have something similar on my cellphone, but it doesn't actually block me. It is an application called Moment. It shows how many times your phone screen is on during the day and for how long. The internet is so full of distracting information and there is no quicker way to access this information than hundreds of news updates and notifications sent to my phone everyday. This app allowed me to see how often I actually was being distracted by my phone and online content. After using this app, I removed apps from my phone that had notifications or newsfeeds like Facebook or Tumblr. This has allowed me to be more present in real life and less distracted from the mass amounts of information available online.Hlat123 (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That Moment application sounds very useful - I am on my phone constantly, sometimes just out of habit only to realise that I have actually no real reason to have a specific app open. I would be a bit terrified to find out how many times I use apps such as Instagram and Facebook but I feel like in the long run it'd do me good. Having that information right in front of you might be a good wake-up call. Riinamaria (discuss • contribs) 19:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I've found, like you, that the completely never ending amount of information available online when it comes to social media can be quite distracting. I've found different ways of making sure that I don't get too distracted from what I need to do by rewarding myself with little breaks. I usually works with a time system, so I'll be studying for a period of time and then have a short break for ten minutes before studying again for a set period of a time. Personally I find that it works very well for me but I'd never heard of any of the extension that both of you have mentioned. But I feel like it's something I would be willing to check out and see if it works for me as well. With such a lot of information constantly available with social media applications and how most people now have phones that connect to the Internet it's very difficult to properly disconnect. I think it's still important though to do it from time to time and realise that sure you might miss one or two things or be late with a few messages, but sometimes logging off Facebook for a day or two is incredibly healthy. TrishEl (discuss • contribs) 22:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You have made a good suggestion on self control tool! This is the first time I come to Self Control Application. It is so true that we can't easily stop ourselves from looking at the frequent update in social media and other platforms. In my old time when I had the public exam. I remember I have to ask my friend to help me change the password of my Facebook. This would not work if you don't have a determined friend who promises not to give you password anyway you ask for. I should have known this application earlier! Thanks for that haha Chuyanlol (discuss • contribs) 11:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I also, as you write in your text am very easily distracted and just recently I found the selfcontrol app you can add to your computer. And I did found it very helpful. I have never done the full 48 hours without online activity but it is something I have considered. I think it's a bit terrifying how controlled we are by the media, and if we manage to shut it off for a few days and truly experience what is around us, I would believe we could see things and know things, and hear things we've yet to experience. QueenElsaIngrid (discuss • contribs) 12:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise Four (Educational Assignment)
The Wikibook exercise introduced me to new levels of group work and required active collaborative effort from all of the participants. Managing a group project on such a scale called for compromises and careful negotiations in order to produce a coherent and uniform Wikibook. Utilizing the cognitive surplus of the students into a collective course project creating Wikibooks content over a couple of weeks was certainly a project I had never been part of before.

This Wikibook project can be linked to collective intelligence – dividing a big piece of work between multiple contributors seemed like a grand, ambitious idea that works very well in theory. However, I feel like that ended up not being the case. David Gauntlett mentions this when talking about user generated content online, claiming that "any collective activity which is enabled by people’s passions and becomes something greater than the sum of its parts". But when it came to this project I feel like there was a lack of this unifying passion, as there sometimes seems to be with university projects. The Wikibook project could have benefitted from proper management, appointed leaders navigating through some of the data the members came up with as the number of participants was quite high. Contributions being valued so highly in the assessment over the quality of the content gave way to people just contributing for the sake of it. This led to ‘contribs’ that did not add to the content, but offered just something to fill the contributions list.

Communicating in my own group, with the core team, proved to be quite easy. We set up a couple of meetings where we would be able to discuss our Wikibooks structure face-to-face, although we did hesitate as this work done outside Wikibooks would not be acknowledged in our contributions. However, we were able to plan the outline and the form of our part of the chapter as well as divide subjects with relative ease. Reaching out to the other teams working for the same chapter and creating dialogue with them was more challenging. The Wikibook discussion page offered a limited way of reaching other people, only allowing us to chat in slow pace – it felt time consuming and frustrating. In the end results were usually achieved.

Participating in this Wikibooks project became quite stressful after a while. Being able to contact the people at all times via the discussion pages blurred the lines between work and free time resulting in exhaustion and permanent stress. Being always on and within the group’s reach created and atmosphere where I was always working on the project even during my time of rest. In the long run this seemed to affect me and my work negatively.

Contributing to Wikibooks within a large group and being part of that collective group brought out difficulties when communicating online. I started to value the face-to-face meetings as it was easier to achieve consensus that way and suggestions were discussed in a faster pace. While connecting with my own small group and being able to build a section for the Wikibooks chapter was a positive experience, the sheer number of other participants from other groups made the project chaotic in my mind. Same group work principles could have been achieved in smaller groups. Riinamaria (discuss • contribs) 22:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

COMMENTS
Hi, Riinamaria. I completely agree with your paragraph on collective intelligence. In theory, this project sounds perfectly interesting and impressive, but it relied on equal understanding and effort from all contributors, which is quite an impossible idea as, more likely than not, there is always going to be one person who could not be less interested and invested as everyone else. Your point about some management is quite interesting – perhaps the project could have benefited from some contributors being selected to sort through the material and improve or alter where needed; however, the question of who they would be, and how and why they would be selected to have this power, could have proved time-consuming and difficult. I agree with your reluctance to meet face-to-face in fear of sacrificing engagement points, but I do feel that at least one meet up was necessary to ensure everyone in the group understood the task. I also discussed the slow pace of discussion in relation to the ‘Always On’ culture – we as a generation are so used to everyone being available almost immediately to communicate on social media that it was a difficult transition to this platform where a reply could take an entire day to come through, which could be frustrating depending on the importance and urgency of your comment. Muir97 (discuss • contribs) 10:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your point about how there needs to be an underlying passion for an online collaborative project to really work. I think a certain amount of enthusiasm is needed in order to create a really effective and useful resource, as this enthusiasm would then shine through the work. However, in this case we were working together as part of a university project as a compulsory part of our module, so it would be understandable that some students would be a lot less enthusiastic than others. With so many people participating, communication among so many participants proved to be difficult - especially with the unbalanced amount of contribution and discussion from each member of the group. Some clear leadership would have definitely benefitted the project, as that would allow key decisions to be made quickly and effectively, rather than decisions taking a long time as we were unsure whether enough people agree with the proposals to go ahead with them. I agree that it may have been a lot more effective having less group members doing more work to achieve the same final result. With over twenty contributions for our chapter, it was clear from the beginning that communication and decision-making was going to be a challenge amongst so many people. Although I do believe in the power of online collaboration, I also believe that the phrase “too many cooks spoil the broth” would be appropriate here. AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 21:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I have run into very similar difficulties as you have mentioned. the project did cause a lot of stress and lot of work that have been done behind the scenes seems to have no value for people marking. Similarly, to you, I was also valuing my face-to-face time with the assigned group more than the actual online Wikibook contributors. The workflow was also picking up the pace when working with the group members because as you said, it was much easier to get consensus. I also previously made a similar point to your where people our age are so used to immediate replies and notifications, making it very stressful when replies would take a long time. I do agree that the project had good intentions and we have made a good collaborative project, but I also do believe that it should be monitored and organised better to create space for all students to show their potential. Toriettaaw (discuss • contribs) 15:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
Your contributions demonstrate a sustained engagement over time but also a lack of deeper engagement with the main module themes. You offer a strong narrative and structure in the wiki exercises but this should be supplemented by a more critical engagement with the concepts and secondary reading, which appears more in your chapter contributions.

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) 14:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)