User talk:Rosane linde

This is the discussion page of Rosane linde (discuss • contribs)

wiki exercise #1 educational assignment
I have repeatedly tried to submit the text I added on Wikipedia recently on here, however the link within the text was marked as a spam, and as the article is still on the other page, I will simply submit a link here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rosane_linde

Marker’s Comment

 * This is a really well written piece, and you are clearly thinking ahead to later aspects of the module - It would have been useful to try to feed this into the themes and concerns of the module more explicitly i.e. aspects of civic web, online activism and collective communities. What is here is really interesting, however, and you have really potential in your writing style and outlook.


 * 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 - more explicit links to project materials and embedded links to external sites would have helped enormously.

RE: Comments on others’ work

 * There only appears to be one comment made - the brief requires that you comment on two other users' exercises.. You have not adhered to the brief. Remember that your comments on other people's work is weighted as heavily as your own post when it comes to grades. Not completing this part of the exercise means that, effectively you are here missing out on a big chunk of your mark. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 14:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Assignment Group Worthwhile Wookies
I'm just collecting usernames here until we get our preferred topic. Rosi is our group spokesperson. Let the fun begin ;)

Group members:
 * 1) Chickpeanut
 * 2) Rosane linde
 * 3) Wecandobetter
 * 4) hfk667
 * 5) Askoelsche

-- Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 21:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated! :) Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 21:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@chickpeanut I am very honoured to be the spokesperson! :D Thanks for thinking about a way of getting the group together via wiki as well. But please all check my last email everyone! Rosane linde (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * So... we all set then? Did we get everything in on time? Hopefully it's all taken care of, but I just wanted to be sure. If not, I can take care of something, just let me know how I can help. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 18:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

So we got our first choice, the "Access" one and that means we can start editing in the wikibook, I presume! :) how do you make the @Hfk667 a link by the way? I don't seem to be fast when it comes to figuring out the wikipedia functions... I simply click on "edit" and put my message.. Rosane linde (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Do the same formatting I just did to lead off this message. You should be fine - you can list up to seven usernames to tag people if you keep adding the little line in between each name! And I just wanted to let everyone know on here as well that I opened up the access talk page to brainstorming! Yay!!! Let's get started (because I'm not going to be here over break)! Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 18:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Googling Myself: Hairstylists and Bread
I never use my full name on the internet, rather I use the nickname by which everyone knows me. When I typed this nickname into Google yesterday, I realised something: my Facebook profile does not show up anymore like it did the last time I had googled myself. Scrolling down I saw a note from Google saying some results may have been removed because of a European data protection law. (Curiously, this only showed up at the library computers on campus and not at home.) After finding this note, I made more effort in trying to find something related to me, both by putting my nickname as well as my real name both in “quotation marks” and without. I looked on Google, Bing, Yahoo and Ecosia and neither of them linked to any profile by which you could contact me. The most prominent results were linking to hairstylists, an area which I have no interest in or connection to whatsoever. However, I did also find websites and pictures that were actually related to me. Searching with my full name, the only one was a photo in the tab which was taken on a day I felt particularly miserable, however the journalist seemed to like my outfit of which the aim, I admit, was merely to feel comfortable. Typing in my nickname, I found more numerous results; between the many hair stylists there were also links to film projects I was involved in, some in my hometown and some at university. I don’t particularly mind being linked to them, but it does bother me a little that they expose the towns where I live and have lived. Other links and photos connected me to my friend’s bakery that I mentioned in an earlier post with lots of pictures of bread showing up when you search my name on Google Images, but still none showing me.

Unintended Information on Facebook
As the Google search was, thankfully, not very fruitful, I went on to think about what you could find out about me when you knew where to look. Facebook is the platform where you could get the most information about me. I try not to give much personal information on Facebook, but I can see the algorithms trying to figure out where I live, where I study, where I am from and so forth. On my profile, just under my profile picture, I am asked where I went to university. The first two propositions given by Facebook are my actual university and the biggest university in my hometown, which shows me that Facebook drew information from my friends’ posts and events I am linked to together and figured out where I most probably live. I have no control whatsoever about this information about me. Even if I would delete my profile and all the information on it would surely be saved somewhere. On other online accounts such as email addresses, I never give out my real address either. On Facebook on the other hand, friends invite me to events near me and tag me in pictures to which they add a location. Whenever I tell a friend who would like to come over my address via private message, Facebook has this information as well.

Online Information and Legal Evidence
At this point I would like to tell the story of a friend who planned on going abroad for a year, and already had his working visa. As soon as he arrived in the country he was stopped by the police at the airport and they told him that his visa was now invalid and he had to take the next plane back to his country. The reason: he had written a private Facebook message to a friend a few days earlier, mentioning that he might do some illegal work abroad. This just showed me that whatever I write online to whomever it is probably filtered and indeed visible for the people and institutions that have special interest in it. Thus, if I was concerned about which information is available of me online, however apparently invisible to the public, I would have to be careful of every word I type in emails, search engines and probably offline on my computer as well.

Rosane linde (discuss • contribs) 17:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments
Wow! My approach to online visibility was very similar (which maybe was due to the fact that I infected you with the 'Google yourself' virus)! I found that Facebook can be fairly private if you stay careful, but still keeps all your information, even when you type and not send it off, it's still saved on their servers! I've heard several stories of people actually failing to get a job, or even being fired due to them posting racist/misogynistic/hateful things on social media. Your story brought this to another level. I always knew that 'the authority' could well track you and the things you say, but this as an actual real life example confirms that nothing we post in 'private' is actually 'private' if it's online. Linking back to another conversation I had: I think Rosane linde's little anecdote explains my concern about my personal online visibility. --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 10:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I want to start by saying I'm absolutely flabbergasted by the story you have about your friend and his study abroad experience. That's incredible! You know, somewhere deep down inside, that everything you're doing on the computer (and typing in, etc.) is being monitored, but that really puts it into sharp perspective. I agree entirely that you have to self-police yourself and your actions to make sure you don't post anything incriminating on the internet. I was also surprised by that European Data Protection law that prevents your Facebook from being shown on search engines. When I Googled myself, I got a link to 'Find Hannah Koguts on Facebook' and found that there are two other girls named Hannah Kogut in this Facebook-using world (who knew?!) but my profile didn't come up. This must mean my security settings are tight like I wanted them to be. But all sorts of other things linked to me - pictures from news articles for when I won a Fulbright scholarship last year, links to things I did at school, links to my LinkedIn profile and my website, etc. etc. It's really strange to have so much information about me so open to everyone, but I suppose it's okay because it's nothing incriminating. It's just the sort of thing you sign up for when you make an account, right? The story about your friend that I mentioned before also reminds me of that link we had in class the other day - the one about the young girl who was working for the police department (or something like that) that had to resign her job because of posts on Twitter. It's absurdly fascinating that, despite privacy settings, posts can get out. It leads people to force themselves to stay cheery all the time for fear one wrong comment could get them fired - and perhaps, if you think about it, leads to the creation of a false online identity. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 15:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Introduction
In a world full of smartphones with permanent internet connection, it is easy to get lost in the mass of information coming from all directions. Be it information about friends' lives or news broadcasting: it might be hard to filter out what is relevant and accurate and one may find it difficult to stay in the here and now. In this text I will examine how I deal with this problem in various ways, looking at the two different forms of information mentioned above: constant updates about other peoples' lives, and the news - especially political news. I will look at how I manage which kind of information I would like to receive and when, by avoiding or filtering it in different ways.

Is it necessary to know everything about the lives of friends - all the time?
I made a very deliberate choice when I decided not to use a smartphone. Aside from not liking the use of touch screen, I have always been wary and annoyed by the idea of having the internet with me all the time, being Always On. I prefer having the choice to go online and speak to people on facebook or to go offline and not be bothered by anyone. When I observe people around me checking their phones all the time I often wonder how they deal with having to take in this amount of information about friends, events, almost anything! Having had Whatsapp on my Blackberry phone with my friends messaging me non-stop for around a year was a very tiring and somehow stressful experience for me. I felt the need to share what I was doing and to know what others were doing all the time, and expected others to answer immediately, just as they expected me to. As a result I felt disconnected from where I physically was and from the people actually next to me, a phenomenon a number of academics have explored. This influenced my choice to go a bit more "offline", with my new shiny Nokia 301, when my old Blackberry did not give me that choice anymore.

Balancing News Sources
As the internet became a very powerful broadcasting medium, we find ourselves constantly confronted not only with "news" from our friends but also with news from all over the world. While one could argue that the internet has made it easier to find alternatives to mainstream news sources, I would say that the difficulty lies in the increasing responsibility of the user to actively inform themselves by consulting various sources with different viewpoints. While being involuntarily confronted with mainstream news in everyday life - newspapers, the radio, on television - I try to balance this out by regularly reading alternative viewpoints from independent news broadcasters online, of which there are many. To make this easier, I "like" different sources on Facebook and set them to show up on my newsfeed, to create a balance from the mainstream news that Facebook friends post. Admittedly, going down that path on the internet often brings you to wild conspiracy theories, however, consulting various very different sources and relating them to each other critically, is for me the best way to create my own standpoint. After all, the mainstream news can be just as wildly biased and inaccurate as a conspiracy theory.

Conclusion
By avoiding smartphones, I make it easier for me to stay in the moment and to focus on what is relevant for me in my everyday life. As for other information swarming at me, I try to manage it and create a balanced view of what is going on in the world by not simply relying on the news coming to me, but by actively seeking different viewpoints.

Rosane linde (discuss • contribs) 10:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments
This was an interesting read and I completely agree that if you do not have a smartphone it is a lot easier to not be as consumed in so much information. I find myself constantly refreshing my social media news feeds to stay up to date on everything and I feel like it has completely taken over my life. I also agree that smartphone users, well me anyway, do not actively go and search the news I read what is in front of me so for example, I read news stories that are posted on my social media accounts which I only ever check on my phone. Whereas, like you were saying you find alternatives and are actively seeking other sources of information which I find interesting. Overall, I think your outlook on smartphones is fascinating considering our generation is so technology driven and it is considered the "norm" to own a smartphone. --Amy Wardle (discuss • contribs) 19:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I really admire that you actively choose to avoid the always-on culture- somewhere along the way I bought into it (probably when I got my first smartphone) and now I feel like I'm stuck in an endless, pointless cycle of checking up on things I rarely even care about, or that don't affect me! The amount of information I am bombarded with in this way is ridiculous and I do, as you say, find it very hard to take in, but at the same time I do miss it when it's not all there at my fingertips- I think a lot of others would feel the same. As for your points about news gathering, completely agree- it's a blessing and a curse to have such vast access to information. While I am less selective than you are with what comes up on my Facebook feed, for example, I still make a point of actively seeking the 'truth' behind what I see on social media about current events. Though it would be easier to just take everything as read I know this is definitely not a reliable method of becoming informed; while I feel like I use social media more than you do, I definitely think I should be using it more wisely, as you describe- thanks for an interesting read! Lilygeorgia96 (discuss • contribs) 19:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The point you make about responsibility to actively inform yourself is really interesting. Social media definitely makes it easier to find alternative viewpoints on news that interests you. But because of that, what seems like it should make the job of getting your news updates easier than it was has actually turned it into work. It's no longer enough for us to watch the headlines on the 6 o'clock news. Now everyone who is interested in hearing news has become a kind of investigative journalist in their own right, sifting through second-hand sources to find the "truth". For me it was definitely part of the anxiety associated with being Always-On, as well, because there's a lot of news that comes from America, for example, that really has nothing to do with me, and yet I'd still spend the time getting alternative viewpoints on it just because I could. --EmLouBrough (discuss • contribs) 23:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I can sympathize fully with your difficulty in managing information from many different sources, as I look through my own favourite news sites I find myself accosted by many different sources including different social media sites such as whatsapp in which I have multiple active group chats. The way that you've set out you're own analysis is very professional also. Could you perhaps link me to a page that could direct me in the process of embedding photographs? It provides a great break in the page and allows for a more stylized approach.AdamB95 (discuss • contribs) 11:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, I'm impressed that you find my layout professional, especially the rather ironic picture of my phone :D About the pictures: just click on the little image of a sunrise that's showing up at the top whenever you edit something on here and it will guide you through how to upload a picture.Rosane linde (discuss • contribs) 17:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! I'm happy I got you thinking a bit! I have to say however that simply not having a smartphone does not mean that you're not part of the Always On culture. While I don't have many social media accounts, Facebook can be enough to get you stuck in front of the screen for hours and make you want to know what your friends are doing all the time. But it is definitely less of a temptation when you don't have a phone that connects you to it.Rosane linde (discuss • contribs) 17:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Organising 26 contributors
When trying to work as a group of 26, if face to face or online, you will find yourselves establishing a kind of hierarchy and finding one or a few spokespersons. This is what happened during our Wikibooks assignment where, as you can clearly see in the discussion, one person took the main lead, along with a few others including me, in providing mark-up information, distributing topics, organising the referencing and keeping the work going. This might be because we realised that the main weight of the grade was on participation, or simply because we generally tent to take leading roles in groups. Once this dynamic is established it is hard and almost impossible to create an equal distribution of work and responsibility.

Lanier notes rightly that when responsibility (to create a Wikibook, for example) is given to a group as a whole, the collective, it is given to an abstract idea of a group and thus essentially to nobody. If the group members don’t feel individually responsible for the project as well, it will be hard to get it started and to organise it. Maybe that is why we easily or lazily rely on a small number of contributors to take the lead.

If members of our society think like this, I wonder how true participatory democracy could even work. Fuchs called for a commons-based internet with everyone being equal participants, but how could it work if we don’t see ourselves as equal participants in the first place?

Relation to the module content
I think the Wiki exercises were a great opportunity to put some of the theory we discussed into practice. Firstly because with the Wiki entries, everyone could reflect upon their own actions and relate them to things we discussed in class. Secondly, because with the Wikibooks exercise we could experience what scholars discussed about Collective Intelligence and the Civic Web for example.

I think, however confused and unguided some students may have felt during the Wikibooks exercise, this was actually a good things because we (or most of us) were thrown into a completely new situation in an unknown domain and facing the challenge to contribute with 25 others. Although some still believed their main task was to create an academic chapter online, I hope that most learned to remove their focus from academics and realise that this time the learning happened on the practical side. The main things I personally gained were to reflect upon the way in which I and others work in a group, realizing that behind Wikipedia there is indeed a hierarchy of admins (some of which arbitrarily deleted our posts), and wondering how much value a project has when it is divided into 26 pieces and therefore might lack coherence or overview.

Rosane linde (discuss • contribs) 09:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments
I found your assessment of the Wikibooks project very informative and engaging. I too had a similar experience of working in a very large group of 28 people. I would agree that in any situation there is normally a couple people or person who will spearhead a project and it is entirely necessary in a group work situation for an individual to push the project along, however I must say that it is considerate to respect that there are other members of the group who would like to contribute more to the project that perhaps don't feel like their opinions/ideas are being validated by those who took the initial lead. In no way am I saying this happened in your group but at the beginning of the project it seemed to happen in mine and I personally felt bad for those individuals who were trying to squeeze their way into a topic that other people had hoarded away for themselves. In my opinion the whole point of the project as you say was collaboration and our large group seemed disjointed in that sense, all together ignoring Gauntlett's idea of harnessing every members collective abilities for the improvement of our book. Of course the very nature of Wikibooks appears as a working model of the Civic Web and therefor it is possible to add to / edit the chapters which were uploaded, contributing to the concept of collective intelligence, however, the tardiness with which some people uploaded limited our opportunity to do so. You may be right in your assessment of Larnier's ideas upon collective responsibility in terms of the abstract nature of responsibility in a group situation, but the amount of people in our respective groups I feel enhances the chances of people sitting back and people leading, in smaller group situations it is harder to hide and you feel a responsibility to pull your weight a bit more.--DunkyNG (discuss • contribs) 22:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
Some good contribs made to the chapter content. These are supported through secondary research and you include citations to the academic work referenced. You don't seem to be very involved in the project until a couple of days prior to the project period ending, so I think a bit more engagement would have been useful to enhance your contribution.

Wiki Exercises


 * 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.

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives a good brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a good range of concepts associated with your subject, and the effort to deliver critical definitions, drawing from relevant literature and scholarship, and your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is very much in evidence. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a good 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 an appreciable standard (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Good engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of discussion pages using deployment of judgement relating to key issues, concepts and procedures

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)