User talk:Smbromley

=FMSU9A4: Digital Media and Culture=

=Wiki Exercise 1: Online Visibility= There are many activities online that people can carry out in order to leave a digital footprint. From creating YouTube content to having a Netflix account. Whether you use a phone for WhatsApp, google maps or Tinder, or a computer for blogging, gaming, writing, and buying or selling. Anything digital item you use that gives you access to the web gives someone the capability to become visible online, regardless if they are aware of it or not. One of the more personal ways people become visible online is by creating social media accounts that directly associated ourselves in real life to a mirrored digital persona. Another way in which people can create an online presence is through more anonymous means of being active online, through the use of such sites as Tumblr, Twitter, and gaming networks like steam, Xbox Live or Playstation, people are able to create a more anonymised online personality. Through such sites, there is less need or desire to put your personal details such as name, age, where you live, online. Although you can if you wish.

This isn’t necessarily restricted to the type of social media platform or website you use, anyone is capable of lying online. I am active on at least five different social media platforms, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. I have five different video streaming accounts, four different accounts for online buying, four different accounts for gaming purposes, the list is extensive. I am actively a part of the always-on culture that Boyd talks about. Whether that is a good thing or not is to be determined. Despite such high activity online, I make sure I am aware to the extent of my privacy on each platform I am a part of

The site that I most prefer is Tumblr, something I don't really hide, if anything anyone that knows me knows that I have it. The reason for this is the way in which it has transformed from a microblogging/social media platform to a one of the biggest sights for cognitive surplus (Shirky, 2010), and it is something that seemed to happen by accident. Through a site that mainly seems to exist for communal purposes in sharing amusing anecdotes and the latest memes, it has transformed in parts. Now there are sides of Tumblr referred to as the ‘Science-Side of Tumblr’ and are called upon to explain things in pictures or videos that seem wild, but that science can explain. Or the ‘History-Side of Tumblr’ where if there is a historical picture that has no explanation, people are asked to detail what event is taking place in the image. It has evolved to the point that people are no longer called upon, but are now voluntarily adding this kind of information to posts, thus transforming Tumblr from a place of communal sharing to one of civic sharing. The choice to share in order to make a more informed online community is the most appealing aspect of Tumblr, as it is now a place where you can actually learn more than you think. References:

Boyd, D. (2012) ‘Participating in the Always-On Culture’ in Mandiberg (ed.) The Social Media Reader pp. 71-76

Shirky, C (2010) ‘Gin, Television and Cognitive Surplus’ in Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age pp. 1-30.

Smbromley (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
=Wiki Exercise 2: Annotated Bibliography= Kennedy, H. (2016). ‘Chapter 1: Social Media Data Mining Becomes Ordinary, in Post, Mine, Repeat Social Media Data Mining Becomes Ordinary. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp 17-33

Within his first chapter of Post, Mine, Repeat, Kennedy begins by asking the questions around data mining, and starts the exploration of the potential for it to be used for social good rather the corporate gain. The idea the data mining is carried out on large scales by those such as the NSA and Facebook is unequivocally less accepted that those within ‘ordinary’ social organisation, such as local councils, museums, small business, and advertisers. Through empirical research, interviews and practical application, Kennedy begins the search into the idea that it is not data size, but data power that has the greatest influence on how data mining is used. Through this research, Kennedy seeks the ideology that data mining to be used on a moralistically and ethically more acceptable way. Despite only reading the first chapter, this book is important as it explores data mining, a concept that is potentially a large contributing factor as to why, as a society, we are considered ‘always-on’.

Smbromley (discuss • contribs) 11:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Hi, Sophie. This was a well-written annotation. The amount of research Kennedy has put into her work (the interviews and extras that you mention) will make for good evidence in our research project. Data mining is a great factor to consider within 'always-on' culture as companies use it to target ideal customers. It will be interesting to see Kennedy's ideas on how data mining could be used more ethically. What are your opinions on data mining? NCowling (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry for the late response, but I just figured out how to respond by tagging you, so that you would be informed. My personal opinions on data mining are conflicted. I understand that in a society that has evolved in order to keep up with fact that consumerism has moved online, and in order to best do this data mining is important. I am also hugely aware that data mining probably aids me in what content I consume online, and without it I wouldn't be recommended content similar to what I like. Thus, I would be restricted in what I consume as a member of the audience. Despite this, the ethical and moral questions that data mining raises are undeniably important. The amount of power and access that large corporations is huge, but also controlled to what they actually use of the data they mine. This doesn't mean that that information cannot be accessed and used for the wrong things. Despite this, we as consumers are fully accepting of the information about us, we always allow access as we see it as a small price to pay in order to do what we want online. Mostly, I hate the idea of feeding the pockets of corporate business owners who don't need any more money, but that strays from the topic. What are your opinions on data mining? Smbromley (discuss • contribs) 13:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi,. I find your annotated bibliography insightful as you paid close attention to the chapter's aims and methodology of research. How do you think it could be a fruitful resource for your discussion on the topic of our project on Always-on culture? I think it would be interesting and useful to consider data mining ethical implications, especially as we are going to address the phenomenon of vlogging within the YouTube platform: in this area of research, asking questions about data mining can compellingly raise questions about how vloggers construct and deliver their presence online through posted content; in addition to that, I find that there can be a lot of implications in terms of our often emotional engagement with this type of content, once taken into consideration that it draws to some extent from an understanding and assumption of what consumers would more likely engage with. Do you think that it could be an interesting perspective to carry on analysing? Absterloutely (discuss • contribs) 20:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi,, thank you for the response, and asking the question in how it relates to the concept of always-on culture. The idea of data mining is that anything from Facebook, to games you download on your phone, to the music you listen to on Spotify, to watching content on YouTube, to browsing sales on eBay and Amazon. All of these sites, with your permission mostly, have access to your data. From what I understood of what I read, this allows a lot of content to be recommended to consumers. If it wasn't for the fact that this information is mined, there wouldn't be the ability to have recommended content to the extent that we do, it would only be through sharing with other people that new content would occur (which would have been fine in the early days of web browsing). In my head, I made this connection that, if data mining didn't happen, then a lot of time wouldn't be spent scrolling though sites such as YouTube. People are always saying that being on YouTube is like being in this black hole where they go from watching cat videos, and then three hours later they find themselves watching a random video about quantum physics for beginners; and it all happens through the next recommended video based on what you've just watched or previously watched or looked for. This wouldn't happen if there wasn't the tech working behind the scenes to mine the information based on previously watched videos which decides what is recommended to you next. I know from personal experience that this makes it harder to switch of, so this is probably how I connected the idea of always-on its most basic form. Despite this, you seemed to have taken the connection further and raised the idea of emotional involvement with media. I also like the potential for bringing in the ethical implications of data mining in relation to vlogging and how this effects vloggers interaction with audiences through the content they produce. I feel like this perspective is one that might be worth exploring as a group, and thank you for opening me up to this way of considering the readings Smbromley (discuss • contribs) 13:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi , I enjoyed your commentary on this chapter and this book sounds very interesting as a whole. This has very interesting implications for always on culture as the other commenters have mentioned in terms of ethics. The fact that we are always on or connected to the network has so many implications for privacy and the "safety" of our information. The issue of power vs size is a very interesting one that I would like to know more about with further research. This is sort of the "dark side" of being always on. This might be a very interesting thing to tie into our paper because it takes another topic and connects it to the one we have chosen. We should look more into this topic as a potential connection to the downsides of our topic. Cls00085 (discuss • contribs) 21:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sophie, I found your annotated bibliography interesting and very relevant to the module. You have summarised Kennedy’s main points regarding data mining really well and is a topic, I personally find appropriate in a time where people are becoming more aware and more particular about what information they post on the internet. I will be sure to refer back to this chapter as it could be very useful to out topic of always-on culture for my group’s collaborative essay. A well written and concise summary, well done! Vw428 (discuss • contribs) 17:56, 15 March 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:
 * Clear Fail. Assignment responses receiving marks below 30% tend to not contain any merit or relevance to the module. Contrinbutions are one-liners, sometimes made up of text-speak, if there are any contributions at all. Often they are indicative of failure to comment on other students’ ideas, and therefore do not engage with the crucial peer-review element. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement, or the user has been blocked for vandalism or other contraventions of wiki T&C. 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.


 * This was clearly not the case here – only 5 days registered where you logged a contrib, and only 15 in total for the entire project period (this does not represent several wees’ worth of discussion). Most contribs registered over the final days of the project. The largest by far is draft work, and as this is largely a cut and paste job for your essay page, I’ve discounted it (I am not able to assess the same work twice). Had you actually discussed the work over a sustained period as instructed, this would have made things much, much easier for yourself and for your group work. There’s no sense as to why you made the decision to leave this until the last minute, and largely ignored this part of the assessment.

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


 * A small number of small contribs.

•	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


 * Not much in evidence here, I’m afraid.

•	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


 * Again, negligible.

•	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.


 * You conducted yourself well as far as the material evidence goes.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 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:


 * Posts 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 and comments are often extremely brief or missing. 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.


 * I draw your attention to the missing posts aspect of the above descriptor. You do not seem to have submitted the reflective exercise #4. This work is at the upper end of this grade band, however, to reflect the quality of engagement that you managed in the earlier parts of the project work. 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.


 * Additionally, 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 especially good. I like that you have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!) and also that you have engaged in discussion in an open and critical way (that is to say, you've responded to what other people are saying and are contributing meaningfully to discussion - arguably the civic element of wiki that you ought to be thinking about, which you clearly are). It is a shame then, that you did not complete the work.

General:
 * Reading and research: some evidence of critical engagement with set materials; some evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material


 * Argument and analysis: throughout, your work tends to be well-articulated and well-supporte. There is evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position) as well as evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections).


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)