User talk:Robert Di Hero

This is the Discussion Page of User Robert Di Hero (discuss • contribs)

Urban Exploration: What Is It?
Within the photographic community, urban exploration or ‘urbex’ is a style of photography that involves the exploration of urban settings, quite commonly in abandoned structures, rooftops, enclosed areas and areas that prohibit public access. There is an increase in this photographic trend, as many photographers will engage with other photographers in organised ‘meet-ups’ where they will travel in groups to take photographs of each other and of their subjects. As many areas will be strictly off limits and anyone entering in off limit areas could potentially be trespassing. Many photographers have gone to the extreme however as YouTube user Public Enemy has displayed.

Controversies
Although many photographers will receive praise for their urbex photographs, there are several problems that surround the urbex culture. As there is an increase in participation many photographers do not abide by the rules and some even purposefully try to break the rules by all means for their own entertainment and thrill. There have been several reports by news broadcasters about the urbex culture causing issues and concern to health and safety of those involved.

Injuries & Deaths There has been many reported deaths and injuries from this form of photography. Many photographers who practice urbex are considered amateurs with no professional background of performing safety checks on areas they visit, which is considered a mandatory procedure when taking photographs or video that may contain risks. Although I believe a large group of photographers will participate in urbex because of the adrenaline rush element of being upon high places or in private areas. The increasing popularity of 'adrenaline chasing' photographers, there has been a significant growth of a sub-culture within urban exploration called 'rooftopping' which was considered to have been made popular by Raskalov and Makhorov, although there are reports of rooftopping occuring before their rise to popularity. Rooftopping influenced a much larger group of photographers to attempt this style of photography and to date appears to be the most fatal practice of urban exploration as many have fallen of roofs.

Trespassing

One of the more common issues with urbex is the concerns of trespassing. In many photographs taken by photographers who practice urbex, there is an increase of rooftop photography, many of those however were taken upon rooftops that have not granted public access. YouTube user and photographer Vitaliy Raskalov (On The Roofs) has created many videos of himself and his friend, Vadim Makhorov climbing tall buildings and structures from around the world, many believe they do so without permission, although it could be debateable.

Time Completion: Robert Di Hero (discuss • contribs) 11:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Introduction
My online visibility is 100% transparent, I have nothing to hide, however not everything about my personal life is published online because not everyone I interact with online is within arms distance as most Social Networks publish publicly due to 3rd party involvements. I take great precautions on what I allow to be ‘online identity’, even though I don’t portray dual personalities or anything of that nature, I value my privacy.

Personal Uses of Social Media
The majority of my posts on Facebook are interacting with Friends and Facebook Pages, such as sharing funny videos, commenting on trending news articles, participating in political discussions or in some instances, interacting in photography groups. I will also use Facebook as a ‘block’ where I will literally ‘use’ Facebook to avoid interacting with people, as some users generate a ‘Harvey Dent’ like personality, where almost unintentionally they become a completely different person online, which is nothing too serious of an issue, but it is completely unnecessary behaviour to have online, in my opinion. My Snapchat account is primarily used to share photographs and videos of where I am, while I am still there, such as sharing a snap before heading out to a football game that I’ll be playing on the day and also to take snaps of different things in an artistic way just to test my ability to be creative with phone photography. I will use Instagram solely for my photography to share it, I have 2 accounts, one strictly for my photographic artwork and the other more personal with posts about myself, almost similar to snapchat, except I can have more creativity when using Instagram. My social media accounts are used greatly for sharing content in the most ‘professional’ or the most presentable way possible, as I value the presentation of content online, so yes, I will be the kind of user that will use punctuation and grammar… Sometimes.

Time Completion: Robert Di Hero (discuss • contribs) 11:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Way Too Much?
Google Justin Bieber… And there you have it, About 163,000,000 results all found in the space of 0.70 seconds (According to Google.) all these results are currently about this one individual, all 163,000,000 results? I’m certain that not all those results or relevant, necessary or even factual about Mr. Bieber, as I am sure, or maybe I am wrong, who knows. However, as the internet is essentially holding so much more information than the standard web search engine can access, it is easy to mistake some online information as factual or trustworthy content. This is not necessarily stating that some online information is not worthy information, but rather not everything out there is going to be relevant information or even the truth.

Distracted - Important vs. Irrelevant
To provide an illustration, it is clear that news websites would provide us with up to date information of events around the world, often the appearance of the website and/or use of vocabulary will provide some sense of professionalism, authority and authenticity. However, websites like The Onion on first glance would look like a legitimate website with trustworthy news content, which to make things interesting people believe to be true, however news stories of Presidential Candidates throwing a Democratic Superdelegate in the trunk of a car isn’t exactly the truth now, is it? (Perhaps on Fox News it might be…) as a summary, satire news websites, more or less do exactly the same thing as a standard news website but most of the stories are either altered, exaggerated or completely made up in an attempt to entertain or just to be humorous.

Still Pretty Useful?
It is easy to slander the internet for its overwhelming presence in our everyday lives and even to an extent criticise any form of information online because the slightest misinterpretation could present the consumed information in a completely new perspective, which in theory is not ideal. Personally if I do find information online about a specific topic, I will gather the information then speak to someone with experience or knowledge in a particular area to assess if what I found is important enough for me to consider ‘valuable information’ or just utter nonsense. Ideally the information on the internet is very vast but it can also be very wrong, as stated, not all accessible information online is actually important, just mostly irrelevant and probably made up.

Time Completion: Robert Di Hero (discuss • contribs) 11:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Reflective Account
I was one of 14 contributors of Open Source and Proprietary Technologies and throughout the whole project, I felt confident about the group I was with because they were persistent and very motivated to have the work done in time as well as ensure everyone was having their tasks done. In the group we were very supportive of each other, as I noticed that MrRobot 321 helped others a lot, along with MrRobot 321. Although people selected different topics to work on, we all agreed that it is important to help each other out as much as possible to decrease the overall workload. Many of the contributors mentioned we were the smallest group, which in theory was a huge disadvantage as it meant that to an extent, some people would have to work on not just one topic, but contribute to several others if possible as we didn’t really have a lot of time to get as much stuff done. I was working on Copyright vs. Creative Commons, which in my opinion was the best task for me to work on because it is something I have to face quite often with my graphic designing as most of my work will be templates made from external sources and will have some kind of copyright or creative commons leases for usage.

I felt that personally I could contributed a lot more, initially I was working alone on Copyright vs. Creative Commons. Due to previous technical errors I encountered previously, I began writing my piece on a word document to avoid losing work, then I would transfer my work on to Wikibooks. However, as I was going to submit my work somebody else in the group, uploaded work, however when I looked through each of the contributors and their contributions I couldn’t really find out who added the piece, so in the end I was unsure who submitted the piece. So I went through the workbook and tried to contribute as much as I could, by spellchecking, assessing if the work made sense and like such. As for the Copyright vs. Creative Commons section, I did add and change some of content the submitted work, but in my fault to not submitting it in time I couldn’t contribute as much as I would have liked to, as I am familiar with Copyright vs. Creative Commons because of what I do outside of University. Overall, I was happy with the project and I feel that I’ve learnt a lot from this project, not only from an academic perspective but an ethical and group work efficiency basis that I need to be more confident, efficient and work harder in whatever I am assigned to do, as well as contribute as much as possible.

Time Completion: Robert Di Hero (discuss • contribs) 11:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment Section
Please click Edit then leave a comment(s) about my posts under the headings you want to comment about, thank you. -

Wiki Assignment #1
-

Wiki Assignment #2
-

Wiki Assignment #3
-

This is a very good outlook on how relevant information can be on the internet. When I typed football into Google, I got 1,220,000,000 hit in a short period of time and would be extremely hard to search for specific but relevant information. There are so many websites that will spin you all kinds of balderdash just to get a point or opinion across wither it be right or wrong. As you say, if you are not sure on the information you are reading, it is better to go to someone who knows more about it and get the right information than accepting something that you do not believe to be true. This way you are getting the correct information and also gain a better understanding of what you are wanting to know. Well written and informative piece! Spedlow (discuss • contribs) 17:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate the time you took to comment. It's quite amazing how so much information can be of one specific topic, even though in relation to Football something is always occurring with different Football Leagues such as matches, player transfers and such it is understandable, but to have that much information is severely overwhelming to even comprehend! Robert Di Hero (discuss • contribs) 03:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You have made an excellent observation on the credibility of information online. With hundreds of millions of results for every search, there is a practical certainty that much of this information will be false, or at the very least contradictory to the truth. While you have mentioned that 'The Onion' produces content that is false, it does so intentionally to highlight passive audiences. However, news broadcasters also intentionally use information that is either contradictory or not the complete truth, as they use a tactic called journalism of assertion which means they produce how volumes of content to meed a demand and keep up with competitors without properly verifying the accuracy of the source of information, (Fox News does this so well it's almost artistic). Which begs the question that, if even trusted news broadcasters don't always accurately portray the truth, how are we supposed to determine what is fact and what is fiction? Beespence1 (discuss • contribs) 02:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking your time to comment. Perhaps I exaggerated with my statement about the 'truths and lies' of news broadcasters, which is currently a debate that is frequently brought up by many people around the world. As for the proof of fact and fiction would come down to observation, because every news story is based of a real life event, so information of the event is accessible of course, but most news broadcasters will report an event from their perspective, without including any sort of input from people who also witnessed an event first hand. So in theory they're 'forcing' a reader to consume information of an event through one perspective, not a collective group of people who may also have something to say. Robert Di Hero (discuss • contribs) 03:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, trying this for a 3rd time because it keeps failing! Just form a glance at the page it's easily layed out and easily navigate able!It's crazy how much information you can get from just typing in a name!163 million results is far to much for any person to want, let alone take in. A measure, that I forgot to mention in my post, that I use to help overcome this mass overload of information slightly is to use advanced search techniques. By adding a simple '+' in between words, or quotation marks for example, it drastically reduces results back and makes them more specific! I like how you have touched upon how different layouts can even make a website look more important, or just be irrelevant. Never thought about that personally. Speaking about the information you find online to a more professional opinion is a great idea! likewise with the plausibility of all the information online. This was a brilliant read thank you and I look forward to reading more from yourself!Conrhyss (discuss • contribs) 12:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
Contribution to the chapter page was minimal at best. Two edits on Creative Commons, totalling a couple of hundred words at most, made in the last moments of the project period.

Wiki Exercises


 * 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.

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives a deficient brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a qualified familiarity with concepts associated with your subject, and the grasp of conceptual, factual and analytical issues tends to be limited and insecure. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes lack a secure basis.

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 suggests deficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * discernible lack of engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Lacking in reflexive and creative use of discussion pages

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 15:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)