User talk:Scs00015

Wiki Exercise #1 - Online Visibility ?
I don’t consider myself to be a very online person, I use some basic social media sites to communicate with friends but that’s all, I don’t like my life being public online, prefer to live privately. However, I may have more of an online presence than I thought. My social media use is limited and for the most part private, I only really use Facebook and Snapchat and only to communicate with my close friends, I very rarely post anything publicly for my entire friend list or indeed the world to see. I keep the information I present on social media to as little as possible, my Facebook profile does not have my phone number on it as the profile can be viewed by anyone, although this allows anyone to access my email address as well as what I look like and the town I live in. when thinking about “always on” theory, my profile is available to the world at all times, whether I am using my account or not. As I use Snapchat quite frequently, my location is visible to those who follow me at all times through the new map feature. There is an option to disable this feature, yet I like to see where my friends are and what they are up to. The feature caused an issue once where I was having a sort of party at my house in which other Snapchat users were present therefore broadcasting my house to lots of other users, some of whom showed up. So, despite not liking my whereabouts being broadcast at all times even when not using the app, I compromise and allow it due to being able to also see other users’ whereabouts. I also recently discovered the extent to which google tracks my location and data which I haven’t stated publicly. Even when not using the Google application on my phone my location is being used online as I receive frequent notifications about restaurants and facilities I visit or even just walk past. As well as this, when the football team I support is playing a match, Google notifies me on the match updates. I have never disclosed to Google the team I support; the engine must have discovered this due to my search history. There is no apparent way to turn these features off, I have come to accept that Google will always store and use private data about me, I accept this as a “trade-off” for using their services. It is ironic that I choose not to disclose information on my Facebook profile, yet embrace being very visible on Snapchat due to other users and accept the online profile Google has of me without my permission. The way I see it, whether I allow it or not, my data will always be accessed by online search engines and social media sites and used in some manner such as advertising, I realise there is no point trying to fight it, instead I accept the way things are. (Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 19:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC))

Annotated Bibliography
[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/21670811.2014.990253?needAccess=true Post, J., & Crone, V. (2014). REPORTING REVOLUTION Technological determinism in journalistic reports on social media and movements. Digital Journalism, 871-887.]

In this article the authors discuss the theory of technological determinism in terms of social media, analysing the impact social media has had on today’s culture politically. The authors focus on the political influence social media has had since its creation, discussing social media’s role in important political events. The authors suggest social media has made people much more politically active, with recent social movements and protests such as the London riots and the Egyptian protests only possibly through engagement with and planning on social media platforms. The article proves useful towards my research as it discusses technological determinism as a theory, as well as providing a focused example of determinism. The main limitation of this article is how specific the example of social media’s political impact on society is, there are other aspects of social media that could be explored when discussing determinism that this article does not touch on. This article will not form the basis of my research; however, it provides a great example of contemporary determinism that I will likely refer to. (Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 10:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC))

Comments

Comment This article seems to raise some interesting points. Since we are doing our collaborative work on determinism together, I feel like it's relevant to point out that oftentimes people do look at social media as a driving factor concerning digital culture. This makes it a really solid example when referring to digital media and I feel like you have chosen a good topic for this bibliography!. Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 13:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the comment I was wondering your thoughts on the topic of Determinism in relation to social media, do you believe social media shapes and evolves culture or do you think our culture evolves without the influence of social media and it simply exists in the evolving world ? Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 22:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I do not defend technological determinism in terms of it being a fallacy, I would not -however- disregard an idea purely on it using determinism. So, with social media I would say that the interconnectivity of the modern world exaggerates that which already exists. So cultures or occurring trends which normally would take place and spread are being "fast tracked" through instantaneous global communications and accessibility. This isn't to say that technology IS the culture (as McLuhan says, "The Medium is the Message", but rather that technology massively impacts the speed and extent to which the culture is spread. There are some lines of logic where I can see how a deterministic view can help. Specifically with technological culture. By this, I mean things like esports and computer enthusiasts. So culture that it not spread by computers or the internet, but that REVOLVES around it. I'm sorry about the mess of my train of thought here, it's a bit harder to form a coherent thought process without redrafting and whatnot. Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 22:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

No need to apologise, you make an interesting point about the inter-connectivity of the world and how it fast tracks trends and changes in culture, I agree that this is the case as it allows ideas to reach most places in the world instantaneously. If applying Mcluhan to social media, I do believe the medium is the message, as social media's main aim is to allow people to communicate and meet new friends, when looking at the political events mentioned in the article, they were only made possible through communication on social media. These platforms brought many like minded people together and made them more politically active, even motivating them to participate in social political events. Therefore I do believe social media to be a deterministic factor as it provides the opportunities for people to change society. Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 22:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Have you come across any other instances of Determinism having a specific impact on areas of culture, or do you believe Determinism to not be as influencing a factor as many believe it to be ? Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 21:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It’s difficult to say, I personally feel as though determinism is not actually true, I just find it an interesting topic of discussion. Thanks for all your input 😊 Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 11:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

it is a very interesting topic with different opinions, thanks for sharing yours it has widened my knowledge on the topic, all the best for the essay. Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 11:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Collaborative Essay Reflective Account
Upon starting the collaborative essay exercise on Wikibooks, my group all met up in a computer lab, relaying ideas between each other in real life and then repeating these conversations on the wiki to ensure our thought process was visible, this was rather awkward. On top of this the reply template seemed unnecessarily complicated and our discussion page looked messy and proved difficult to follow. However, by the end of the project my group were all contributing, using the reply feature effectively to answer specific members of the group and providing them with feedback, or using the reply feature to pose questions to the entire group. The platform’s features are also a lot more in depth than they first appear, towards the end of our project we discovered methods of tidying up the discussion section as we separated the discussions into their own relevant sections. One member of the group even discovered drop down headings that left the page looking clean and easy to navigate. These features whilst aesthetically pleasing also enabled the group to clearly see what work still had to be accomplished, making the essay process easier. The platform proves very useful in facilitating collaborative work, as the whole group is encouraged to comment on or even edit each other’s work, I feel Wikibooks allowed for the group to enhance each other’s output and build upon our individual learning. This relates to little edits such as correcting spelling errors across the essay, to gaining valuable feedback from my peers on how to enhance my work with one colleague even suggesting a theorist to read into that enhanced my knowledge on our set topic. Despite overcoming the initial learning curve of the platform and its functions, there were still some issues I encountered with Wkibooks during the collaborative essay assignment. The discussion page, despite proving useful through its reply function had some drawbacks, if more than one user attempts to post to the discussion at the same time one of the posts will be deleted. On a few frustrating occasions I had typed out lengthy replies only for them to be deleted upon posting as I was unknowingly posting content at the same time as another user, this issue is the only problem with the contributing element of Wikibooks I encountered. The collaborative nature of Wikibooks was not limited to my group however, due to the platform’s online visibility allowing for all content to be viewed and commented upon by all users. This gives the platform a real community feel as I had the ability to read over essays posted by other users of the platform that enhanced my own knowledge on a variety of different subjects. There were also instances in which my own posts were commented upon by other users and we engaged in a discussion on the topic of Determinism, we shared each other’s views on the subject which provided me with a different opinion on the topic which I had not considered myself. This is when I started to realise the value of Wikibooks, the platform really is about creating an online community of learning. The collaborative element of the platform evokes the idea of a digital commons, the platform is managed by the users of the site, there is no money to be gained through creating content, the only thing that can be gained through Wikibooks is knowledge. The platform evokes the idea of the “produser” (Burns, 2008), in which there are no clear distinction between producers of the content and the users of the content, the users instead develop into a hybrid role in which they both create and use the content available. As Wikibooks is a user-led platform, it really does promote freedom of information, as the information is created by the users of the site, any other users are free to use the information as they wish, even given the opportunity to add to or edit it. This freedom of information paired with the community feeling Wikibooks has developed allows the platform to be an extremely useful learning site in which everyone is invited to share their knowledge as to result in all the users learning something.

Reference used - Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 12:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC) (realised i had not signed this properly that is why there are 2 dates)21:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Reflective Account Comments
Hey there Scott! I know what you mean about the initial difficulty that was presented when we first began collaborative work on the wikibook platform. I’m very thankful that we were in such a good group/community to allow us to constructively comment on each others work (Sort of like what I’m doing right now!). I agree with you concerning the platform’s initial difficulties but also on your elaboration on a certain “depth” which was present. You reference -here- when I experimented with the drop down headings in order to make the main page more efficient and aesthetically pleasing and I am glad that you found that productive. (More than anything it was just a product of frustration with the otherwise un-formatted page which we had previously. I am very glad that you feel as though the platform facilitates collaborative work and also individual learning. This was something that worried me initially (that having too much collaboration would hinder or somehow worsen the individual experience), but in the end this wasn’t necessarily the case. I can empathise and relate to this struggle you mention about the page not allowing multiple edits to take place simultaneously. This -in my opinion- is probably the greatest drawback that the platform has concerning collaborative work (less so when regarding individual work). I would, however, like to add when a user ‘tags’ another (or in the case of wikibooks, ‘replies’), when the tagged user navigates to the page via the notification they recieve, it makes no mention as to where on the vast page the comment actually is. This was one of the main reasons why I unfortunately had to format the page in the first place. This is, however, a fairly minor issue, it was just relatively frustrating to use the flawed feature so much during the course of our collaboration. I feel as though your opinion on wikibooks as a platform is fairly similar to how I see it. I am of the opinion that the majority of stigma that surrounds the platform is due to a very complicated (or at least unoptimised) user interface. This isn’t necessarily a death sentence for the website, but considering the vast majority of social media has very streamlined and accessible presentation in comparison, wikibooks falls flat. Of course, the issue here is that wikibooks is not intended to be a social media site, it is aimed towards an academic demographic and its use is far different. So I feel as though discrediting the notion of wikibooks based largely on its interface is unfair. I am impressed somewhat by your inclusion here of reference to the term “produser”. I am frustrated that I did not make that connection myself. It becomes evident that you, like myself, have become more invested in what wikibooks had to offer than it would seem at first glance. Your evident knowledge and consideration concerning wikibooks is refreshing and I agree with a great deal of what you have written here. It has been a privilege working on this collaborative essay with you and I hope that we can continue to constructively aid one another throughout our academic endeavors. Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 22:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this feedback i really appreciate you taking the time to read and comment on it, this is what Wikibooks is all about engaging with each other to enhance each other's learning, so thanks for being part of the community! Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 00:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: DISCUSSION, ENGAGEMENT, CONTRIBS

 * Engagement on discussion pages of this standard attain the following grade descriptor for contribs. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this will give you a clearer idea of how the grade you have been given relates to the standards and quality expected of work at this level:
 * Fail. Contributions of this standard do not address the assignment requirements. They offer little to no engagement with the concerns of the module. They are poorly written. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.

Students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.


 * Clearly not the case, you seem to have only logged contribs on 6 days during the entirety of the project. There are quite a number of these, however, and a few of these are meaningful discussion.

Evidence from contribs to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of editorial activity as evidenced through ‘contribs’). These are primarily considered for quality rather than quantity, but as a broad guideline: o	Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial” o	Items on a contribs list that are <1000 characters are important, and are considered in the round when evaluating contribs as a whole because of their aggregate value


 * All contribs below 1000.

•	Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages o	Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration o	Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay o	Evidence of peer-review of others’ work


 * Some evidence here, especially towards the end of the project.

•	Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages o	Clear delegation of tasks o	Clearly labelled sections and subsections o	Contributions are all signed


 * Although some technical merit, there are too few to make a good assessment.

•	Civility. Your conduct is a key component of any collaboration, especially in the context of an online knowledge-building community. Please respect others, as well as observe the rules for civility on wiki projects. All contribs are moderated.


 * Ok.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is in relation to the making criteria as outlined in the relevant documentation, it should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band overall:


 * 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.


 * This work is at the upper end of this grade band, but even so, a little improvement will go a long way to attaining a higher mark. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and (especially for this, perhaps, the Understanding) criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets. This is especially so in terms of engagement with fellow users, which tended to be fairly brief and as a result, quite superficial at times. Some of the edits are a little descriptive rather than analytical, although your reflective account is good.


 * Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would have made a considerable difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good most of the time, but as mentioned already, a little brief. Remember that the comments are "worth" as much as posts themselves. The reason for this is not only to help encourage discussion (a key element of wiki collaboration!) but also to get you to reflect upon your own work. This can all, of course be used to fuel ideas that might form part of your project work.

General:
 * Reading and research: some evidence evidence of critical engagement with set materials; less evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material, but it is there.


 * Argument and analysis: some well-articulated and well-supported arguments in the portfolio; some evidence of critical and relational thinking, especially in the final exercise


 * Presentation: see above comment on use of wiki markup and organisational skills.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)