User talk:Srepanis

Hello there, this is my user discussion page I will be using this to register my work on the wiki book project and for other assignments. Please feel free to comment on my contributions here Srepanis (discuss • contribs) 21:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: Educational Assignment
I believe that everyone has caught themselves at some point looking up on YouTube a social experiment or “prank” video, as they are most famously known. This particular category has got my attention since 2008, while before the internet I was a fun of TV-shows such as Just For Laughs Gags, Candid Camera and Punk'd. Most of the videos show a man or a woman who identifies as “prankster” or YouTube prankster approaching unsuspecting people and puts them in an awkward situation. While in 2005 there were only a few channels of this kind around today there are many more. This has made this distinct category grown into a genre of its own and created competition among the various YouTubers. The great advantage is to the viewer who has the option to watch those who distinguish from the rest and have successfully managed to create a channel marked by themes and unique ideas. While my personal preference is extensive, here I just to explain the vast popularity of three of them among YouTube subscribers. Roman Atwood is one of the most known pranksters who started his channel in 2009 but has maintained a lot of accounts over the years. Roman's success started when he started uploading pranks inspired by cultural stereotypes and television shows. His videos Prison Break, The N word, Drinking and Peeing in public and Epic Purge are some of those that harness the site's idea and launched the channel's publicity. Second to Atwood comes Vitalyzdtv which is a channel that started with social experiments but reached great success with famous pranks such as Chainsaw Massacre, Miami Zombie Attack, Gold Digger, Russian Hitman and Friday the 13th. Like Roman Atwood who employed widespread cultural stereotypes Vitalyzdtv has also come to prominence following a similar pattern. LAHWF which remains my personal favourite to date is a channel which, apart from a few exceptions, shoots social experiment videos. Although the channel has had a lot of success among its kind it has never changed its pattern of uploading material by putting people out of their comfort zone. Recently, there is an ongoing discussion around the authenticity of the videos we watch sparked by those who doubt some of the uploaded material and believe the pranks are staged. With some people who appear on the videos as random strangers coming out as actors and saying they were paid for their acting services on the scene the future of the genre is disputed.Srepanis (discuss • contribs) 20:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Comment

 * a fairly well written post her, with some good content and implied links to the module's concerns. I think you could have made more of this through explicitly tacking nothions of online persona and performance - particularly scholarship relating to YouTubers as celebrities. That said, you have made use of the wiki markup by embedding links to reading and also to the sites under discussion. Some really good potential here.


 * A post of this standard roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor, although perhaps in the middle of the grade band because you need to make links to module concerns and relevant scholarship more explicit:
 * 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.

RE: Comments on others’ work

 * These are on time and ok - lots of content, scope and reference to module themes is there, even though I think this could be made more explicit e.g. VoD and media convergence, which comes later in the module, but there's nothing wrong with reading in advance if it is of interest to you! Remember that your comments on other people's work is weighted as heavily as your own post when it comes to grades - I think that you could have made more of the format and included citation and links to sources in your comments in order to engage discussion, but they are fairly lengthy and of use to the users posting. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 17:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments

 * Hi, I have found your entry about prank videos and social experiments very interesting. Personally, I quite enjoy watching social experiments videos on YouTube and one of my favourite channels is What Would You Do?, which is also aired on ABC Primetime. The format they use is the basic social experiment one, with actors playing out a scene and cameras recording people's reaction. One of the thing I like most however is the fact that behind the scenes there often are psychologists, professor and generally experts that give the viewer insight into what might have led people to react a certain way. At the same time, I am also aware that the world of social experiments and pranks is quite problematic sometimes, not only regarding the authenticity of the scenes, as you have said, but also for the content of this videos. For example, I do not know if you are aware of him, but the British YouTuber Sam Pepper recently got into troubles for organising a prank with two other Viners. The two Viners were best friends and one of them agreed to pretend to be kidnapped in front of the other one, who was unaware of the prank going on, and be shot by Sam Pepper to record the reaction of his best friend. Obviously, the unaware Viner was terrified when he saw is best friend being shot in front of him and Sam Pepper has been criticised for this type of 'prank' video. Do you think there is a limit to the scenarios played out in social experiments and pranks? If so, I think we should find a line where things stop to be funny. This Youtuber in particular had already a bad reputation, as last year he made a prank video, now deleted, where he went around LA groping girls' behinds. He was accused of sexual harassment and the video was put down. To defend himself he said that it was actually a social experiment video and tried to fool people by doing another 'social experiment' where he groped guys' behinds. His aim was probably to try and claim that people react different if the subjects are male instead of female, but anyway it was clear that this was not the original intent of this video and he was just being disgusting. In fact, afterwards some girls who had met him in real life went forward and alleged rape claims, proved to be right, against him. If you want to see the shooting/kidnapping video it is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBvX5dNdMK8 --Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 00:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi : just make sure you sign your comments at the end. You have touched upon a very sensitive line over what's considered funny and what's not. The way I look it is as long as the prankster creates a situation based on people's assumptions and expectations of it then the gag is within sensible limits. If for example the prankster holds a gun look-alike object that's actually a bar of chocolate I can take it. But if it's a replica gun, something the people involved don't know, I would feel sorry for them and despise the prankster. Thanks for the suggestion I've seen the show quite a few times too. Srepanis (discuss • contribs) 20:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I always forget to sing my posts, my bad. Exactly, as you said, the context created by the prankster influences its ability of being funny. Obviously, some people are very picky and don't find these things funny at all but I think that if the people involved are not harmed or emotionally charged then it's fine. Thanks for pointing out the signature thing again!


 * Hello there!! This is a very interesting topic which you have chosen to touch upon. As a teenager i was also obsessed with prankers all around the media, whether that would be the television or the internet. As we are growing older and thus becoming wiser (having in mind the fact that we are media students as well) supposedly we are expected to develop a more critical eye over the media and their ideological framework. Drawing from a previously discussed topic here, i would like to ask you personally: to what extend do you let your self to be drawn into those pranks without positioning your self critically? To make it more clear, are those videos a relaxing period of time for you or do you raise any critical questions about the ideological reasons behind their existence? --Nikolas135 (discuss • contribs) 11:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Basically, I am subscribed to many channels and when I watch their videos I do it for fun. There are times that I feel the need to react and comment on what I see which I do on my YouTube account. Besides the fake content that exists there, there are videos that repeatedly present women as "gold diggers" by judging them from a single act or interaction with a guy who in fact lies to them. Also I have issues with a lot of videos that show exclusively women who are considered conventionally "hot" and beautiful while leaving out the normal and average looking ones. So I guess I view this content always having in mind that the acts and the people involved are selected in these videos and I notice that even the "pranksters" themselves cannot see it when they discriminate against certain minorities and groups. You may see Andrew Hale's last video which tries to dispel myths circulated by videos such as this.Srepanis (discuss • contribs) 12:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Facebook
My visibility settings limit only users who relate to my “Friends” to have the chance to look me up. As a result searching my name on Google doesn't give results on the popular social networking site. However, as I am constantly connected on Facebook I use my account to get access to various other pages and post comments on their articles. This means that users who do the same thing can have a look at my page yet get very little information about me such as where I currently stay and study.

Google
On the search machine of Google I do become obvious from comments on sites under my Facebook name. So even if my page isn't directly obvious to others it does become through other websites where a comment has been left. What is more worrying however is the amount of freedom someone hands over to numerous websites which ask your Facebook info to grant you access to their space. I have done this many times thinking that it doesn't make me visible to other users, but strange as it may sound I have given information to a media company which remains a complete stranger to me.

Interesting information, I didn't know that you could make the results invisible when people google searched your name! What concerns do you have with people knowing your name? Would you ever consider using a fake online name for security reasons? KerryFromThePub (discuss • contribs) 08:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC) KerryFromThePub (discuss • contribs) 08:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey : having your settings to "Only Friends" actually had nothing to do with visibility on search engines it was my mistake. You can make yourself invisible on search results by disabling this option on "Privacy settings" on Facebook. As for my online presence I have no problem getting in open discussions with other users on other pages but sometimes I feel the need to hide some of this activity from people I know from FB and real life. There are times I talk about sports or politics and when I do this on YouTube I do have another name. It's also true that people from your workplace look you up online and I absolutely want to keep my work separate from anything else I do in life.Srepanis (discuss • contribs) 18:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I share your thoughts on the amount of information we give to unknown sources. What I find even more worrying is how when you search my name on Google, pictures of me come up that I'm not even tagged in! This information is out of my control and has managed to link itself to me. Similarly, when I have searched for products on sites like Amazon I have noticed advertisements on websites showing similar results and clearly having obtained the information from my searches online. Braydencoulman (discuss • contribs) 15:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments on wiki project 2
Hello Srepanis, I agree with you on so many levels, I too have agreed to let an app have my information and not cared about the outcome when I really should. only recently I noticed that you have to give permission to these websites however I also just pressed continue without a care in the world. Although when you type my name into Google many different accounts come up, including a social media account that I deleted many years ago which is scary, also pictures from years ago when I was in my local newspaper for things in school such as being in the European Parliaments. There are many pictures of me online and regardless to what I try and do to get them off I cannot. My online footprint is very visible and clear Tellegee (discuss • contribs) 20:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I really enjoyed reading your post! I think it's interesting that you also brought up how we can't control what comes up on Google as this is something I also wonder about frequently, especially since Google is available to everyone and anyone. I'm also the same with Facebook with my privacy settings and I try to keep it at private as possible, but sometimes you wonder even with those settings how private your page really is. Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 18:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Information Overload
Nowadays, what most of us experience when it comes to the information that surrounds us is well known as fear of missing out. It is the constant need we feel when stay away from our phone, laptop or gadgets. The fear that keeping ourselves isolated from our networked devices will lead to our exclusion from some important news. While people are now having instant access to the news they like the same devices affect the ways we understand the idea of news items.The proliferation of video and sound has brought in our lives the need for more accurate and realistic data. As a result videos that document everyday events tend to fit easier in our news-feed habits.

Social Network
The "News Feed" of Facebook allows you to keep in touch with the most current issues at a given moment. The mode of the service lies in a mechanism that watches all the news Facebook pages that deal with a range of issues from Politics to Sports. Then, the most popular of those surface first and make it to the top list. Hence the reason why someone would be tempted to check out such news is simply because every other user on Facebook has already done it. The proliferation of the hashtag '#' mark has also allowed not only news reporters, but every user of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to spread news under a trending mark.

News of the world
From personal experience I stay connected through my phone to BBC news and I watch news around the world from Facebook. I actually watch the New York Times posts on Facebook and Twitter, while also see most of the top posts on Instagram. I follow a couple of Greek papers online to see what's happening back home as well so the amount of information I have to process daily is quite a lot.

Science
There is a lot going on in the field of Aerospace, Medicine, Engineering that I feel deserves our attention. I try to keep up with all the discoveries that may change the way we live our lives and also help us tackle lifelong diseases.

Art and Culture
Due to my field of studies and personal interest I have been attached to film and art news for a very long time. I spend a considerable amount of time every day looking up upcoming movie releases, box office performance of current films at the theatres and read comments and critical reviews on them.In addition to this I read and watch interviews of film-makers, actors and producers or sometimes follow the real events of the story behind the film.

Dealing with this amount of information
As we all have a limited amount of time to follow news and take all this information in we have to make our priorities when it comes to organising our time. So in my daily routine I am only following the top 3 international news of the day while leaving the rest for the next days. That said I only know the 3 most significant news that take place anywhere in the world and I usually catch up with the rest over the next days. That does not apply to the art or film news as I am looking up at movies daily. There is also a lot of "garbage" news that pops up on my screen every day which is very difficult to avoid and have not found the way to do so yet.In my opinion the internet shapes how we understand news and a lot of the social media determine what is trending and what is not. In the near future the stuff that we tagged "rubbish" news 20 years back now they have found their place in our daily routine.

Comments
Hi, similarly as a film student i follow a lot of film web sites and i try as well to read as much as i can about films. But, even though the internet is a huge database full of information about cinema sometimes i get myself caught in the process of reading an article or a review and thinking that i am actually wasting my time instead of investing it because that piece of text is of a low quality, and i start doubting the information that i am being injected to. This is a result of the information overload that the web database allows as anybody can contribute or in those particular cases pollute the web with. So i would suggest that the first thing that we should do would be to check the writers background before accessing their articles as this is the only way to be sure of the quality of the text. Don't you agree? --Nikolas135 (discuss • contribs) 10:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki #4 Wikibook Project Reflection Account
I like starting with the following quote as it best summarizes what it means to work in an online community with 25 other people. "In production, human subjects engage in cooperative social relations (subjective dimension) and by making use of the means of production (technologies, resources) create a new good or service (objective dimension). The overall process has effects on individuals and on society. The production process has a subjective, an objective and an effects dimension. All three dimensions are transformed by the transition from a capitalist to a communist society".

The total number of 120 people working this year on WikiBooks projects created a bulk of knowledge to be shared by a number of users in the years to come. Their reward is living in the shared knowledge because "wikipedians are prototypical contemporary communists" Starting from the Creative Commons License and extending into free software Wikipedia is a self-sufficient mode of production that resembles a lot a communist society. Having issues with copyrighted photos during our project we have had our fair share of experience with this aspect already.

The reason our endeavour represents an example of Participatory Culture falling in Jenkins' canon is given by Christian Fuchs: A participatory culture is described as one: 0.With relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement 1. With strong support for creating and sharing one’s creations with others 2. With some type of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most experienced is passed along to novices 3. Where members believe that their contributions matter 4. Where members feel some degree of social connection with one another (at the least they care what other people think about what they have created). Our work on Surveillance and Sousveillance is a vital contribution to the WikiBooks community. The project started with general definitions and moved on covering a large area on the subject. The current stage of the project allows potential contributors to make additions in the future. For example, the recent leaks of Panama Papers would have been a necessary addition had the project started before the publication of the documents. Future developments on government surveillance will also bring substantial information to our work in a similar way. Working in a digital community like Wikipedia or WikiBooks enables you to have a first hand experience of shared knowledge. The volume of knowledge someone takes in when works collectively is beyond what a human being can recall at any given moment. The WikiBooks project embodied this idea by enabling us to learn key terms and theoreticians but also experience the contributions made by our peers. As the material online kept growing it was impossible for all of us to comprehend it, but future projects, inquiries or dissertation proposals will find our work extremely useful. In Pierre Levy's words : “The knowledge of a thinking community is a fundamentally collective one, impossible to gather together into a single creature”. Srepanis (discuss • contribs) 20:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments
There is a variety of interesting points in your reflective account. This a very good piece of work that uses effectively secondary sources to support its arguments. It is obvious that you have been reading widely and spherically about digital media and the key theorists that have contributed to this wide field. Extremely interesting is the communist-Marxist perspective with which you have chosen to reflect upon. Your invocation of Fuch’s and how this communal production process adds to the transition from a Capitalist society towards a more communist one, is once more extremely interesting and efficient. Something more impressive was also your reference to the recent scandal of the Panama Papers to argue how wikibook’s project doesn’t end here but it could possibly have a continuation with the additional contribution of other wikipedians. Finally I totally agree with you that the sum total of all the student’s contribution in each chapter of wikibook seemed quite overwhelming. Even though I really wanted to follow everything, it was and still is quite impossible to go through everything  that was written down, something that I am sure our professors will have trouble with. Nikolas135 (discuss • contribs) 13:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

After reading through your account you have shown a great understanding from day one of the task that has been given to you. Your wider understanding and use of referencing, academic, secondary and theoretical resources shows this this task may have been a lot easier for you than others on the course. I 100% agree with you that a better knowledge of the way in which to use Wikibooks and a better way to keep up to date on the posts like said this could be something even our tutors struggle to keep track of the amount of information that has gone into each individual task. Also very good use of links and resources in this section Tellegee (discuss • contribs) 12:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
You appear to be a key contributor to aspects of sousveillance on the chapter's content page. This includes definitions, fixes and wikignoming, adding citation and references, interwiki and external links, and so on. Your edits on the chapter page total fairly substantially, and are of good quality, and your consistent presence editing through the last week of the project made a significant contribution to your group's work. Your wiki exercises could have made more connection with module reading and research – the progress you make is evident though, because these improve significantly as you go.

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, clearly grounded on close familiarity with concepts and ideas encountered on the module
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material through evidence of close familiarity with a wide range of evidence
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument featuring appreciable depth of understanding
 * good level of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * good 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 appreciable 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) 15:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)