User talk:Shakeygravesbeattie

Hey, Shakeygravesbeattie here, I'm a film and media student at Stirling University and i'm ready to start my Wikibook portfolio. Shakeygravesbeattie (discuss • contribs) 14:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki exercise#1 : What makes a good Wiki?
From personal experience, Social Networking Sites (SNS) such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have been incredibly easy to collaborate or engage in discussions with other users. I frequently use Facebook’s Messenger to discuss plans with friends in group chats and to keep in touch with my family who are spread out across the globe. These networking sites are easy to manoeuvre through due to their basic format. It only takes a few minutes to grasp the principles of Facebook or Twitter then the user is ready to dive into the world of memes and Gifs. My own experience of Wikipedia on the other hand is completely different to Facebook or Twitter, I only became aware of the discussions that go on “behind the scenes” at Wiki because of the digital course I am currently involved in. My previous engagement with Wiki has been to look up random subjects or topics, for example I just looked up what Gif actually means (a Graphics Interchange Format, fascinating!). Basically, I use Wiki as a tool to find information. I engage with Facebook by delivering and receiving information, but in contrast I only receive information from Wikipedia. So why is this?

For starters I did not understand the process of Wikipedia so I used to believe there were only two types of people who contributed to Wiki, Internet trolls and the Wikipedia administration (developers etc.). However now that I’m starting to grasp the process of Wiki, I believe that there are still two types of contributors, people who genuinely know vast amounts of information about a certain topic and Internet trolls (I’m afraid we just have to accept that they’re out there). I personally would avoid editing a wiki topic unless I was absolutely sure I had evidence to support my idea. And maybe this reason is why I engage with Wiki differently to Social Networking Sites like Facebook or Twitter, there is definitely a qualitative difference between my discussions on Facebook and the discussions I might have on Wiki. If I were to engage with Wiki, I think I would act more formal in discussing my ideas compared to the informal messaging on Facebook for example. To fully understand and grasp why there is a qualitative difference in engagement with Wiki and Social Network Sites, I must take time to investigate and actually engage with users in the Wiki environment, should be an interesting journey.

Shakeygravesbeattie (discuss • contribs) 13:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wiki Exercise #1


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 Understanding and Engagement elements, it should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band overall.


 * 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.


 * This post is at the upper end of this grade band, 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. You are certainly beginning to reflect upon the potentials as well as challenges of this platform, so this is a great start! Less instrumentally, and more in relation to this particular post, making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would go a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, as you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this will make a considerable difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, if 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. I like that you have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!). For example, in one of your comments, you state: do you think we need another mass user communication source? and indeed, there is a real point for discussion here based around a) the saturation of social media presence, and b) the fact that wikis aren't social media. As you point out, these are very different, and therefore, I think cause for further exploration.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

=== Comments on Wiki Ex#1 ====

Hey Andrew. Great post! Ican relate to your use of Wikipedia and other social medias. I also use Facebook, as an example, for much more personal and entertainment purposes, whereas I will use Wikipedia for random spur of the moment searches such as when I want to find out more information on an actor/actress or artist when I am watching a film or listening to music. I, too am just learning about the further branches of Wikipedia due to the digital media course.

I also agree with your comment on the users of Wikipedia. I had only ever heard of people editing Wikipedia articles as a joke, if they’re not genuine academic writers and researchers. While I may have thought that these were the main contributors, and had read an article which I potentially knew more about, I would never have thought about collaborating with the existing editors in sharing information. This contrasts to Facebook, however, as if I saw my close friends talking about a topic I knew a lot about, I would definitely be more inclined to debate or talk about it than I would be on Wikipedia. I agree with you when you say Wikipedia is a lot more formal. Wikipedia is in the public domain whereas Facebook is potentially private so I wouldn’t think about my posts on Facebook nearly as much as I would on Wikipedia.

In summary, I can completely empathise with your views on both sides of social media and I too look forward to exploring the ins and outs of Wikipedia in this project. CammeyNotCameron (discuss • contribs) 03:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Data Trails
I would regard myself as being both an active and passive user online, as I frequently engage with friends using Facebook Messenger, check my email accounts daily and spend a reasonable amount of time surfing through pictures on Instagram and videos on YouTube. In the past, I would have argued that I only produced a relatively small digital footprint in terms of being visible on social platforms because I rarely “post” on Facebook or comment on YouTube videos. However, I am now starting to understand that because I have an account with these social networking platforms, I am always present or visible online whether I engage with the platform or not. Anyone with an internet connection has the ability to find our Facebook profiles, from our profiles people can find relatively personal information about us like age, what school we attended, if we are in a relationship and where we currently live. Although this information is often used for positive reasons like to help us find friends or “people you may know”, it’s important to know that this information lives online. I often find that the default controls in the privacy settings on social platforms are normally set at the least private option which can be a problem for users who are not aware how to change it. I feel this is a sneaky move on the networks behave.

Keeping our personal information private on the internet is actually quite difficult because most social media platforms require us to provide some sort of personal information when we sign up for their services. One of main reasons why we use these social networks is to interact with each other, so providing little details about ourselves will help find like-minded individuals. But how much information should we really share on these sites. Will we ever experience a moment where we step back and just look at how our lives are portrayed online and realise the information being shared does not truly represent who we are as humans. This idea can be related to Jaron Lanier’s description of a generation divide through interaction with Facebook, as older generations use it to find past childhood friends and generally have good experiences, the young generation appear to be “trapped by the cartoon versions of themselves” (2010, p200). Will we reach a point where we share everything about our lives, our emotions and our thoughts online to an extent that we stop interacting with each other in person? For example, instead of getting to know someone in person will it become the social norm to download a file of that person to see their interests and hobbies, likes and dislikes, their relationship status etc. I truly believe these are realistic questions to ask and think about.

Shakeygravesbeattie (discuss • contribs) 04:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Exercise #2 Comments
Hi @shakeygravesbeattie

You make a lot of really interesting points which I completely agree with. I had not considered that Facebook privacy settings are originally set to the bare minimum; which is strange, because most users alter this to be more private. I wonder what the reason for this is? Perhaps because less privacy may equal more visibility and therefore the user will create more links with others? What do you think?

When you discuss surfing through pictures, I personally post more photos on social media than written statuses. This may increase my 'visibility' in a physical sense online as photos show a representation of who you are and what you do. There is also tags in photos which must be recognised here. These can often disrupt any censorship the user has provided. For example, if the user keeps their Facebook profile professional for work reasons but they are then tagged in a photo from a club, this may disrupt the online identity they were trying to create. On the other hand, do tagged photos shows a more accurate representation of the user's identity? Since they have not been chosen by the user to construct their online profile? Of course the user can still remove tags and so they do not lose all control. Being tagged in a photo can also lessen the privacy you have. Instead of "friends" being able to see your photo it will become "friends of friends" which in turn increases visibility.

This links to your point referencing Jaron Lanier. Does online identity differ from "IRL" identity? Most likely but on a varying scale depending on who you are. I think now people will look at online profiles to find out information such as someone's birthday rather than ask them directly. So perhaps we are already see this come into effect.

86.191.113.112 (discuss) 10:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC) 86.191.113.112 (discuss) 10:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)--86.191.113.112 (discuss) 10:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Evbestie (discuss • contribs) 10:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey, you raise a really interesting point about the similarities and differences between passive and active digital footprints. It's led me to think about the impact I have had on the Internet, and however small, I am still a part of this global community. I think that's why people enjoy it so much, to feel connected and find solidarity among strangers from all over the world. The idea of this connection is very exciting in terms of human progress as people will start to forget about the differences between race, gender, sexuality etc. and start celebrating the similarities. The more we actively participate online, the more we will feel part of this global connection.

The question you posed at the end of your post has arguably become a reality already with the dating app Tinder. The ability to quickly swipe through a bunch of "candidates" and scan their hobbies and interests cuts out the steps where people have to introduce each other in real life. While there are those who have had positive experiences with it, there are others who regard it as superficial. Tinder is largely based on the proximity of the users, yet there are others who have developed relationships with people online who are on different sides of the planet. This is a very interesting development in the progress of the Internet, and a concept that would have been dismissed as impossible a century ago. --EmilymDaniel (discuss • contribs) 23:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload
With today’s technological advances being generated more rapidly than before, it is not surprising that information is significantly easier to obtain. The information pouring from the internet seems to never end with hourly contributions from users on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Reddit etc. For example, as soon as you scroll down the news feed on Facebook, new pieces of information (posts from friends, news shares, pictures etc.) will appear at the top, when you finally think you have caught up, more memes and hilarious videos will be ready and waiting for you. It is incredibly easy to get lost in this never ending cycle. I find Instagram the most distracting even though I rarely post anything. It appeals to me because the platform is designed to be more specific than Facebook in terms of what you use it for, I find it more exciting to look at pictures of dramatic landscapes or artistic portraits on Instagram than what Facebook has to offer with regards to images.

I have to admit that I’m an active member of the “Always-on culture” because lately I’ve noticed that I always have my phone either in my pockets or somewhere in close proximity and I normally have the urge to check it every so often. But why, I would have heard the pings or tings if anyone had contacted me, it feels more of a habit now. Danah Boyd and Sherry Turkle would explain this by saying I am “tethered” to the technology I use and I would have to agree with them. Boyd raises an interesting question about what counts as being “online”. If not interacting with the platform at that particular time, does it mean we’re offline? Boyd argues that this is not the case stating that even when the internet is not being used, the user is still connected to the network which means they are still online. I have definitely been more aware of how much time I am spending on social networks like Facebook Messenger and Instagram so I decided to download an app called Quality Time which allows the user to see how much time they spend on certain apps. See table 1 for some results in week one. Maybe the results will help realise the main distractions so I can avoid them in the future.

Table 1. Shows how much time I spent on apps, how many times I unlocked my phone and the highest used app for that particular day in week one.

Shakeygravesbeattie (discuss • contribs) 18:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3 Comments
Hello Andrew!

I have to say that I totally agree that there is a never ending stream of information on the internet, but not just on normal social networking sites – different search engines and sites are updated all the time as well. It’s not just Facebook that’s time consuming when just browsing for random and interesting information or just for the latest memes or gifs which will no doubt make its round among your friend group, it’s also the online papers that are regularly sending out updates and ‘Breaking News’ stories or the occasional feel good ‘not a story but reading this will make you feel good for a short while’ updates.

I like the use of the table it just goes to show how much time spent on social networking sites really takes up time. I myself am more of the ‘I’ll easily give up the internet for a year if you gave me the option’ type, but unfortunately because of my unbelievably busy student life – I am constantly online having to check messages so I know what or when things are happening and whether I’m needed to help out or not, or if there’s a social even I need to show my face at... it’s irritating enough for me to switch off live notifications because I just don’t want to hear what’s going on. I’m quite sure that in this week alone, I’ve probably spent approximately 12 hours on my laptop for study purposes interjected with maybe 1 – 2 hours of socialising every day... I am far from happy about it, but needs be as needs must, and these days it seems that everything is online.

SinaOhlandt (discuss • contribs) 22:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @shakeygravesbeattie

This was very interesting to read. The table you created really demonstrates how being online has become a big part of everyday life. In my report I focussed mainly on academic information online and so it was interesting to read your view on the subject from the angle of social media. Obviously there are a lot of differences between academic and social media, however the principal of "information overload" is prominent in both. Whether the user is browsing for work or for personal interest, with the abundance of information, it is all too easy to become distracted or led off course by other things.

I completely agree that apps like Facebook and Instagram are like a never ending cycle. There is always more content available. Taking a quick break from whatever you were doing to check a social media site can turn into 20 minutes of scrolling without realisation. As there is always more content, there is no stop sign where the user has reached the end result. Using apps this way is somewhat addictive and quickly becomes a habit.

When I am trying to complete a task and I find myself veering of course, I try to constantly remind myself to stay focussed. There is an overload of information online however does this have to be a negative thing? The more information there is, then the more likely it will be to find whatever it is the user specifically searched for. What do you think? Can the overload of information work for the user?

You didn't discuss the workflow of the Wiki Project or the module overall. I was just wondering how this is going for you? And, on a wider scale, if you think this module has enhanced your skills and/or encouraged new ones?

Evbestie (discuss • contribs) 09:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Thanks for commenting! Yeah I suppose information overload can certainly be a positive thing too, users can learn and gain more knowledge if there is masses amount of information available to them. However with the amount of information on the internet (which is always rising), do you think users have the time to consume all the information that they specifically searched for? The overload of information might cause the user to get discouraged or they might miss an important piece of information.

Oh dear, I forgot to mention the Wiki Project, thanks for saying! The Wiki Project is certainly a new experience for me, it has taken a while to get use to but now I am starting to grasp the concepts. How are you finding the experience? This module has definitely made me look at how complex the internet is, I admire the idea that the internet is a collective work with people across the globe contributing. I guess in a way the course has made me aware of how I use technology like social media, when I found out I was spending an average of two hours a day on my phone, I was a little bit concerned. But its good that I found out, now I can hopefully spend less time on my phone and pay more attention to whats happening around me instead. Shakeygravesbeattie (discuss • contribs) 15:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4 (sorry its late)
The Wikibook project was an interesting experience, the nature of working collaboratively online allowed the ability to share ideas amongst classmates quickly and it was also useful to add information to other users work to hold a better grasp of the key concepts of the Digital Media module. It was like participating in a small version of the “hive mind” as members of the class and I needed to collaborate to produce a functional Wikibook about living in a connected world. Working collaboratively online was a fresh experience, it was challenging at first in terms of understanding the Wikibook editing format and page layout, but like everything in life the more time spent on Wikibook the easier it became to understand (although I am still having trouble inserting images into my work but I will get there eventually).

One my main concerns in the beginning of the project was how other users will react to my work, as in will they comment on my Wiki exercises and find the information useful. This is mainly due to the way I would describe myself online, as a passive social media user, for example I very rarely post on Facebook or upload pictures to Instagram, so uploading work to Wikibook was a bit awkward for me at first but it became easier. Collaborating in the Wikibook project also helped to articulate my ideas in a more readable manner, this was important as it was necessary to create a discussion with other users to form a collective state of mind about a topic in the project. I was involved in the largest group consisting of 17 individual users, our goal was to discuss Privacy in the Digital Age. I believe we managed to collaborate well together, in our groups we discussed what topics each sub-group would tackle and from there we helped each other form a cohesive Wikibook piece on privacy. The Wikibook discussion page was the main platform where my group discussed the project, it was easy to post a question for other users to see and you would receive a response fairly quickly, which was great.

This is one of the advantages of working in a “hive mind”, if you get stuck in honey, other bees will help. The collaboration with other users was an excellent experience, the class supported each other with advice and helpful suggestions for finding further information. If there was any criticism it was always of the supportive manner. I wonder if this positivity was due to the users knowing who the other users were through our Wiki labs and discussing the project face to face. It would be interesting to learn if anonymity would influence the positivity and supportiveness of the wiki groups.

In conclusion, I believe my understanding of the main topics of the module has been enhanced by the engaging manner of Wikibook and the discussions I have had between other users. I view Wikibook as an entirely different social platform than sites like Facebook, I would describe it as an academic social community due to the formal language used and the material that is being shared. But it’s a good thing it’s different from Facebook, we need that separation from informal and formal, otherwise Wikibook would be filled with Gifs and pointless comments on how “rad” the weekend was, we need sites like Wikibook to keep producing credible information so our knowledge on certain topics can expand. Shakeygravesbeattie (discuss • contribs) 15:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC) Shakeygravesbeattie (discuss • contribs) 03:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)
The introduction section here is a little brief, however it draws its strength from being well written, in an accessible language. In addition to this, very usefully, each section has been laid out in bullet point format, with a very brief summative sentence for each section. The sections themselves represent wide coverage of many of the main issues surrounding privacy in contemporary popular culture.

However, of particular use here – and very much a strength of the chapter as a whole, is the section that draws together the issues raised here, and applies these to other areas of the wikibook as a whole, explicitly making more of the platform than would otherwise have been, had the groups decided to write this chapter in isolation. To be clear, the execution of this section could have been better – greatly improved through more systematic use of interwiki links to draw attention to the specific pages, sections and issues from the various pages in the wikibook which you were commenting on. Another specific section here that could have been improved is the section on celebrity vlogging. Whereas it is true that there hasn’t been a lot written on this (yet – there is a growing interest in the scholarship, and we can expect much more appearing in the short term), it should have been acknowledged that the scholarship on celebrity culture as a whole is very well established, and that most of the issues raised in relation to YouTubers (e.g. “the price of fame”, privacy issues, and the implied “fair game” logic) are covered in existing debates on celebrity. All that said, the potential for this last section was recognised and other parts of it fully engaged with existing research in the field, and therefore is rewarded.

Structure-wise, the chapter seems to hang together fairly well – the definitions section at the beginning, whilst by no means exhaustive, gives the reader a sense of the subject matter under discussion early on, and also some useful working definitions of key terms used. Some typo errors and inconsistency of formatting appear dotted throughout, but these are not the norm for this chapter. Odd inclusion of bibliographical material of theorists, but no discussion or application their ideas in that section (especially in the case of Fuchs, where it lists a few of his research association and academic achievements. A little bit more joined-up work would have improved on this section enormously.

The unusual step of including a survey and posting the results here is an extremely useful one. Something that absolutely HAS to be thought through in ALL future work is that if one is conducting a survey (even if for demonstration purposes, as included here) or indeed ANY work with people, one must go through an ethics approval process – this is to ensure no harms (relative or absolute) occur for researchers or participants. This process will become more apparent later in the degree programme, particularly in final year projects. The glossary is really useful – not quite exhaustive, but good for quick reference purposes. Use of interwiki links in here would have been useful. The references section again evidences research, reading and sharing of resources. Some of the formatting seems to go awry towards the end, so a little more joined-up thinking there would have been useful, but overall good.


 * Satisfactory. 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.

Wiki Exercise Portfolio (Understanding weighted 30%)
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 overall (and particularly in relation to Understanding and Engagement elements), that should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band, relative to the 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.


 * Reading and research:
 * lack evidence of critical engagement with set materials, featuring command of a limited range of relevant materials and analyses
 * little evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * poor argument through judgement relating to key issues, concepts or procedures
 * lack of evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position);
 * limited evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections);

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