User talk:Rossmurray26

Wiki Exercise 1: Educational Assignment

This post is specifically for educational purposes and discussion. A website I found really cool that I discovered recently is called bodybuilding.com, which is a site accessible online that allows you to adopt your own fitness plan at any level for free. The site allows you to specifically select a fitness routine developed by specialists in the field of fitness, healthy-living and bodybuilding that focusses on what you want to achieve for your body and ultimately maintain a better lifestyle. You simply need to enter credentials such as height, age etc. as well as indicating what your main focus is on: perhaps on losing body fat or gaining muscle? The site then selects the best workout for you to adopt based on the information you have entered - if you're keen to get back into the gym but are perhaps confused on where to start, this website is perfect for getting off the mark. This website also has its own fantastic app available to download on the Appstore which allows you to access exercises and stretches whilst at the gym and even has its own exercise videos along with step by step instructions to ensure users of the app know exactly how to perform the exercise. The app also offers deals on supplements and even recommends particular supplements based on the goals you have set yourself. Whether it's contest preparation, endurance improvement etc. this application recommends the best products for what you're trying to achieve and is the perfect aid in obtaining the body of your dreams. /reviews/www.bodybuilding.com Rossmurray26 (discuss • contribs) 12:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Very useful website
Especially beginners without a coach often have problems in finding their own fitness plan. Therefore your post is very useful and also people which are working on their fitness very long can still find new hints to improve their training. I like that you wrote that post in a very personal style so that the reader is directly involved. To improve your post you could work with links and refer to opinions of magazines that maybe wrote an article about that website. SimonBrinkmann (discuss • contribs) 17:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

This website sounds cool even for someone like me, who is really not into the exercise. What I like about it is that you can find your fitness plan, all based on your credentials, so if you are not trained enough (or at all, as in my case) you will get a plan which suits you and that gives you the chance to start slowly. For lazy people, this surely sounds good. I'll check it out, thanks for sharing! Nikynikay (discuss • contribs) 10:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Interesting Website
I would agree that this website is very helpful as it seems it would aid beginners all the way through to accomplished athletes with how in depth the site goes. I also agreed the ability to set your own goals was a very important feature and as everybody can always improve their health and fitness it seems like the best place to start looking. When looking at the site I noticed the nutrition section which gave you diet advice as well as full recipe ideas claiming to quick and easy, while also suggesting the best times to eat to achieve the most effective workout and again it allows you to choose recipes for the goal you set yourself. Another feature of the site I found was the forum section which allows you to ask questions to experienced bodybuilding.com members, which could be especially useful for beginners who might still feel unsure or intimidated by the main site. This means beginners can ask questions on where to start and potentially get help from health and fitness professionals. In terms of relating your analysis to ideas on the module I would consider the notions of online identity and the performance of self. By people sharing this type of content it could be either representing a real life identity of the person or maybe its part of their performance of self, managed in a way to promote a certain impression of them self. Kieranmcm95 (discuss • contribs) 11:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
This post describes a website but does not go much beyond that. It's unclear why the link at the end leads to a review of bodybuilding.com rather than the site itself, as there could have been more links within your writing as we want to see evidence of proficient use of wiki markup, which is almost completely absent here. In future exercises, make sure to critically engage with the material further. Think through how it links to core module themes and any reading you have done. Your comments are more thorough and engage with colleagues' comments, but don't forget to sign these as well as your posts on your own page.

A post of this standard roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor: Poor. Among other things, poor entries may just offer links without real comment or apparent point. They may offer nothing more than poor-quality synopsis or description of material of dubious relevance. They may have serious clarity problems (including dead links, random graphics) which affect comprehension (or even worse, admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement). They might be off-topic, private trivia, or of unclear relevance. The wiki markup formatting will be of a poor standard. Sprowberry (discuss • contribs) 10:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 3: Information Overload!
There is an unfathomable amount of information out there on the Internet and particularly in regards to someone's online identity: depending on what platform you are on depends on what information you may gather from a certain person. For instance, information one shares on LinkedIn is very different to information one may share on Facebook for example - because of the different fundamental nature of the two online social networks, people are inclined to disclose different details online about themselves since the networks have different uses and aspects to them. Social media is both very distracting and also very addictive: in the Time Magazine | U.S. Edition, an article called Wired for Distraction: Kids and Social Media written by Dalton Conley, states that students who are using social media a lot have "continuous partial attention", meaning that their attention pan is very limited and they cannot concentrate on one particular person or thing. It could be argued that its addictiveness comes from how impressionistic it is - since our profiles represent us all as individuals, our human instinct to be liked plays a role in wanting to portray the best image of ourselves to others. However, the issue with social media is realism: representations can be completely distorted or fake and this causes a whole list of problems empirically:
 * roleplay
 * expressions of hatefulness
 * identity theft
 * damaged reputation

The list goes on. Another reason social media can be extremely distracting and disruptive to a person's everyday life is due to the networks' integration with one another: Facebook and Twitter for example have the ability to connect to one another and this enables your tweets to be posted to your wall. Hence, when going on Facebook, you are not just looking at Facebook posts and statuses, you are looking at tweets; Instagram posts, YouTube videos and Vines. If we drift away from social media specifically and look at the bigger picture regarding information online and its distractive nature, technological advances in gaming consoles have revolutionised the gaming experience and links with this idea of integration in another way, since consoles now provide as a source for all kinds of digital entertainment where they did not a few years ago. Could this be the start of a cultural shift in history due to advances in technology? Having all this information readily available at our fingertips contributes both positive and negative factors to us and society as a whole. Rossmurray26 (discuss • contribs) 02:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Rossmurray26. But what about you personally and how you deal with different information? I really like the way you've gone about this as I addressed information as a whole in relation to its relativity but you have gone about it in a different way and seen how different platforms and media demand different information from us. It really is interesting to see the difference when comparing the medium to their uses. Jowettgreen (discuss • contribs) 16:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Positive factors

 * instantaneously access knowledge
 * effortlessly share files
 * backup files without needing to use hardware
 * wide network of access
 * promotion
 * attract a wide audience/foster relationships
 * influence the world with ideas

The Internet, like any tool in life, comes with its own set of dangers. Due to the vast amount of information online, the Internet is becoming a platform for criminal activity.

Negative factors

 * sharing of copyrighted material e.g. music, movies
 * no exclusivity and that anyone can use anytime, anywhere is luring criminals into committing crimes crimes via the internet
 * decrease of productivity
 * cyber-bullying
 * a false sense of connection
 * lack of privacy

Wired.com posted two studies demonstrating damage to productivity due to social networking: Nucleus Research found that Facebook shaves 1.5% off of office productivity and Morse claimed that British companies lost 2.2 billion a year to the social phenomenon. Negative Effects of Social Networking This always on culture that we as a society have developed mainly through mobile technology is shaping how we view the world on a day-to-day basis and thus transforming human consciousness, furthermore, leading to personal, professional and social problems. All in all, the internet is a double-edged sword that - if used in the right way for the right reasons - will prove to be a good mentor.

Wiki Exercise 2: Visibility and Online Footprint
Regarding online visibility I am very much visible like most people of this era. I pretty much have every major social network and even have LinkedIn since I think it's a useful tool for my future career in establishing professional business connections. All these networks display my personal information, however, I am more selective of who I share my information with depending on what platform I am using. My Facebook profile displays minimal information about me to the public and only displays everything which I have input into the user interface to those who I have confirmed as my selected friends - a random person cannot access every detail about me unless I confirm them as my friend. My other networks such as Twitter and Instagram are private and only confirmed followers have access to my content: I have done this because social media can be very dangerous if one does not select wisely who they share their content with. I am completely aware that this information that I have posted online is not completely private despite being selective of my audience, since online "friends" can forward these posts I have shared with them with a click of a mouse. Fundamentally, I believe there are so many social networking sites out there due to impression management - having all these different networks are not by any means necessary to be "sociable", but rather, they allow for us to present different versions of ourselves in different contexts to different people, just as we present ourselves differently in various face-to-face contexts during everyday life. Most, if not all social networks allow chatting, both publicly and privately and all allow for sharing photos: you can share photos and videos on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and Twitter. However, due to the nature of each network and the way they are used, having all these different social networks is beneficial since it allows for portraying the right version of yourself to the right audience. I don't want to portray myself as a boring professional on Facebook to all my friends who I'm connected with and have known since my school days. Moreover, I certainly don't want to share pictures of a party I was perhaps slightly drunk at on my professional LinkedIn account. Hence, one could argue it is necessary to have these different social networks for different purposes.

However, I am often shocked when I look at how much information someone is willing to post about themselves online since some people literally plaster every intricate detail of themselves out there on these networks. danah boyd argues that there is no clear distinction between our real lives and our virtual ones and that we have to consciously declare "off time", which I would 100% agree with. I think this is very much the case and I experience this feeling regularly: I feel that it becomes too much after a while and it has an impact on my mental well-being since looking at one Snapchat of someone or witnessing a post about something can literally change your mood in an instant. Social media is so addictive and leads us to obsess over wanting to consume more and more content. In this article on mental health it talks about the effects it is having on the more vulnerable, younger generations. Since the lines of distinction of our virtual and real lives are so blurred I find I have to delete social networking apps from my mobile from time to time for a few weeks or so - it is so effortless and easy to click on them without even thinking and aimlessly consume content from them for hours on end. There is definitely an element of discipline that needs to be involved in a person's life nowadays regarding social media since we are constantly tethered to our technological devices and in a state of permanent connectivity: we need to consciously be aware of how much we are consuming and be wary of consuming too much. We are not just using technological networks here - that's not what is so addictive. What is addictive is that we are dealing with social networks, real relationships and lives and doing so behind closed doors in the comfort of our own private space and just so happen to be using technology to facilitate these social interactions. (danah boyd, 2012). Rossmurray26 (discuss • contribs) 02:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
The collaborative nature of the wiki process was mixed with both positive and negative qualities regarding working together in a large group civically to create the wikibook on digital media. The wikibook was called ‘An Internet of Everything?’ and consisted of 5 topics : in total there were 121 contributors for these 5 topics all relating to different areas and aspects of digital media. These 121 contributors were split into 5 groups – 1 group per topic – that worked out brilliantly since we were able to communicate on a private and public level via the discussion tabs on each page. The discussion tabs’ purpose for this assignment were to allow us all to engage with one another and communicate ideas we had for the wikibook. For instance, if one wanted to bring forward an issue or an idea concerning the larger group of 121 contributors then they would open up a discussion on the discussion tab via the main wikibook’s page, which would typically concern things such as the format and layout of the wikibook and what was going to be focussed on in each section.

Whereas, if I wanted to speak to my group whom were focussing specifically on Technological and Cultural Determinism (only a group of 23 members) on an issue or idea relating to this particular topic then I could again use the discussion tab – this time on the topic’s page. The difference between the two is the audience that I’d be reaching out to: publishing content on the main wikibook’s discussion page is posting on the public sphere whereas content shared on the topic’s discussion page is content shared on the private sphere since the audience is far smaller and relating to a specific topic concerning those who were assigned the topic by our module convenor. However, the discussion tabs were sometimes pretty messy and in particular the larger group’s discussion page proved challenging to follow since there were so many contributors all talking about different ideas as well as it being initially sometimes difficult knowing who was communicating with you: it was something you had to get used to.

Furthermore, we were then split into smaller groups within the topic and collectively discussed different sub-sections that we could introduce into our topic’s page. In order that we were all clear on what group was doing which sub-section of Technological and Cultural Determinism as a whole, we created a table to display who was doing what. Out of the different sub-sections of the topic we had Definition – initially I was concerned since it would seem as though there would not be much to write about regarding the definition of the topic, however, as a group we realised due to the broad and various definitions of the terms from different theorists we had to use our reasoning to come up with the most solid and detailed explanation. Ultimately due to this we further split our group in half: 2 of us focussed on technological whereas the other 2 focussed on cultural determinism. The discussion pages enabled me to further my knowledge, as I was able to learn from fellow students since there were others like myself who wanted to understand how to make better use of the wiki markup and I was able to see what other students wrote about without having to go and research myself. When my group and I had a face-to-face encounter in the library it allowed us to discuss in greater detail how exactly we were going to share the workload as well as deciding on what source material would be appropriate for our sub-section as well as how to reference these sources on the wikibook.

Media theorist David Gauntlett’s definition of the Civic Web is that of a network of people online collaborating effectively to create an especially powerful resource or service enabled by people’s passions, becoming greater than the sum of its parts. This project’s core principle rests on the civic connection between the students – collectively all the students on this module collaborated and worked together to create this wikibook on digital media and culture. Despite it being divided up into 5 different topics, which we all were split up into, we created something greater than just 5 individual studies on certain aspects of digital media – we created something bigger – essentially an ebook or an online document that anyone can access via the internet which would have taken an individual studying all these topics far longer to create than it did as a collective. Shirky’s views may come into play here: if we spent less time consuming media and more time on civic collaboration and creative endeavour as modern democratic societies this would enable us to get things done as an alternative to institutionalised and centralised structures which are self-limiting. Clay Shirky Rossmurray26 (discuss • contribs) 11:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
You worked on a range of contribs and conversations across a week and there is also evidence of secondary reading. Unfortunately, this is let down by lazy referencing. Even though the assignment was set on a wiki, it should still meet the same standards as an essay. Some of your exercises were late and were overly descriptive.

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 limited critical engagement with set material, although most ideas and procedures insecurely grasped
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material limited, displaying a qualified familiarity with a minimally sufficient range of relevant materials
 * Argument and analysis:
 * poorly articulated and supported argument;
 * lack of evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * lack 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 independent critical ability limited, due to the fact that your grasp of the analytical issues and concepts, although generally reasonable, is somewhat insecure.

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content suggests minimally sufficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Acceptable engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Limited reflexivity and creativity, and a somewhat insecure management of discussion pages

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)