User talk:Summer.schnellbach

  Wiki Exercise Portfolio   

Exercise 1: Online Visibility
In today's modern society, the majority of people are online in one way or another. The degree to which people exert themselves online is ultimately up to them, considering the numerous privacy setting options. Some people, such as myself, are not as cautious when it comes to online visibility. I would consider myself to be quite visible online. I partake in social media, and I can be found in a simple Google search. I choose to voluntarily share some of this information with friends and family online. Looking at my Facebook privacy settings, I am not as protected as I originally thought. There are images of me that come up that have the setting to be shared with "everyone" when I would like them to only be shared with "friends". I do have control of this, but I need to carefully review things before I post. People can also find out information about me from the 'about' section on my Facebook page. I have the option to keep this blank, but I want certain people to know who I am, and therefore populate the section. My visibility on Snapchat is not as bad because I choose to turn off the latest feature of "Snapmaps" that enables people to see where their friends are based on a location tag. It is quite scary to me that my snapchat friends could potentially see exactly where I am at any moment. However, I do not feel weird about tagging my location in Instagram posts. I mostly feel more comfortable with this because I upload the photo after I have been somewhere, not while I am there.

I have a presence on many online platforms, including Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, and more recently, Twitter. I am on these sites because I am a participant in the Always-On culture. I also have the fear of missing out (FOMO) and I always want to feel connected to those I can't be around. Sherry Turkle calls this the "tethered-self" - meaning people are always connected to their devices, and not connecting with those right next to them (Turkle 2008). I am guilty of this, I can be sitting next to someone on the bus and choose to scroll social media and pretend I didn't see them.

I am always online, sometimes to the point of it interfering with other activities such as academics. I am so tethered to my phone, and that's how today's society has become. We are so reliant on our phones/devices to keep us company rather than our friends and peers who might be sitting right beside us. As I type this, three of my flatmates are sitting next to me, all on their phones. None of us are talking and the only sound is my typing on the keyboard. One is on Buzzfeed, one is on Facebook messanger, and another is on Snapchat, Instagram, and Facebook. We are all together physically, but we are all in different places in our digital worlds.
 * Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 21:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Exercise 2: Annotated Bibliography
Metzler, T. A., Lewis, L. M. and Pope, L. C. (2016), Could robots become authentic companions in nursing care?. Nursing Philosophy, 17: 36–48. doi:10.1111/nup.12101

Could Robots Become Authentic Companions in Nursing Care?

In this article by Metzler et. al., they question whether or not robots could make suitable companions in nursing homes by examining a robot's emotional capacity, looking at the opposing view, and considering revisions in AI modelling to better compliment human emotions. The authors offer scientific and philosophical reasons for why confusing actual human emotion with artificial intelligence portraying human emotions can be a mistake. Their research focuses on whether or not 'socially assistive' robots, or SARs, are capable of taking care of the elderly. While there is still no clear answer to whether or not artificial intelligence is useful in caring for the elderly, the information provided in this journal will be useful in my own research into how AI offers companionship, even if it is not genuine friendship. The main limitation I found from this article was the level of difficulty in understanding what the authors were trying to say and get across. Additionally, it would have strengthened their argument to do their own study rather than look at what has already been done. More research is needed in this particular area of study to truly know how beneficial robots can be in providing care, companionship, and friendship. There is more information on this topic from Lostraven that discusses more on robots providing care. (https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/I_Dream_of_IoT.) The works of  Metzler, et. al. may not provide the basis for my research, but it will be useful supplementary information.
 * Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 22:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 22:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 21:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Reviews
Hi Summer!

I really enjoyed reading your annotated bibliography, as I was not aware that there is that much research being done into the possibility of care robots. I was wondering how you came across this area of study, as it is quite specific?

Your annotated bibliography demonstrates that you have a good understanding of the article, as you are able to highlight the limitations of the study. This is especially important, as you describe how the article is difficult to read. Furthermore, your ability to provide additional sources about care providing robots, shows that you wrote your annotation with the reader in mind.

You mention that this article will only be supplementary to your study. I think your group for the collaborative essay is focussing on always-on culture and the tethered-self, right? Firstly, this would maybe be useful to mention in the annotated bibliography, as that way the reader can get an understanding of how this particular source might fit into the broader context of your research. Secondly, you mention that this study helps to understand the possibility of friendship as provided through robots that display artificial intelligence. In what way do you agree or disagree that robots can be a friend or companion? Do you think that the more advances we make in technology the more tethered we get to our devices, now that we can interact with the Internet of Things on top of connecting with real life people?

All in all, I think this is a very well written annotated bibliography about and interesting research area.

MaryCastoridae56 (discuss • contribs) 13:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I came across this area of study through doing a search in my home university's library database! I used to work in a nursing home, so when I hear of robots as companions or friends, I somehow immediately think of the elderly population in nursing homes who do not have the friends and companions they might have if they were still living on their own. I found this article by simply searching for "robot companions" through my school's database, where I was resulted with hundreds of articles and journals that discuss the topic. One that had popped up mentioned the elderly population and I was immediately drawn to it.

It is hard to choose one side or the other as to whether or not robots are capable of providing friendship and companionship. When discussing the elderly, like the above article discusses, I do think it is possible for robots to be a companion. The elderly who have been placed in nursing homes and care facilities get quite lonely. It is quite common that the spouse of the person in the home has passed away, or is no longer capable of caring for their spouse in the proper way. When they are in the care facility, too often that not the only "companion" they have is the nurse or nurse aid on duty. I have seen it myself, when I worked as a dietary aid in a nursing home, that the residents get so lonely. They are trapped in a tiny room, many of which resemble just a bedroom in a flat, and many do not get a lot of visitors. It was not part of my job to act as a companion or friend to the residents, and I was often yelled at for sitting in their room with them, or out in the common are with them, to talk and be a friends to them when they were lonely. In this way, I definitely agree that robots could be suitable companions, and even friends, to the elderly people in care homes. Some robots are able to artificially understand the emotions of others, and this can be quite useful for elderly people. As sad as it is, they do not even care who they are talking to, as long as someone is there with them. I have seen residents in nursing homes talking to dolls and taking care of the dolls because the toys have become their only "friend" even though the doll could not respond, or even care what they were saying or how they were feeling. If they had been talking to a robot, the robot could respond and understand the emotions of the residents at the nursing home. This would be very beneficial and positive to the emotional and mental health of the elderly residents.

When talking about another population, such as teenagers and young adults, I disagree with the idea that robots can be companions or friends. The robots are not able to provide the proper social setting that another human can. As teenagers and young adults, we learn how to communicate effectively and efficiently with others. Another person is able to provide us feedback and support in a way a robot cannot. We argue with our parents and friends, and we are able to learn from that and continue to build our relationships with those people. Proper communication is key to a strong relationship, and I just do not think that robots can provide the kind of communication that we need. Additionally, we learn and gather more from body language sometimes as opposed to verbal language, and although robots are being build to better comprehend body language, I do not think it is enough to have that true strong relationship like we would with another person.

In response to your second question, I do think that we are, and already have, become more tethered to our devices. It is scary how this is happening because I have seen how even in the fairly "newness" of this technology, people have become so consumed. A lot of people, I notice, would rather be connected in the Internet of Things than deal with humans in real life and in real time. Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 15:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Summer.

Thank you for replying to my comment. I can definitely see how your employment history in a nursing home made you be interested in such an article. Maybe, depending on how fast and in what way technology advances in the near future that might even result in you (and many others carers) losing their job. This might also be applied to many different sectors. With technology and the Internet of Things increasingly taking over tasks that were previously only manageable by humans, we might face greater unemployability in certain sectors. Albeit, this might create help in sectors such as nursing where there is a large lack of staff.

I have heard many stories like yours of nurses and care takers going beyond their way and time to spend some time with people who are very lonely and often lack any sort of companion. Thus, I too agree with you that robots could be a companion or friend or at the very least some sort of engagement or even entertainment that is different than maybe more traditional media (such as television). This is as I assume that companion robots need the a more active or participatory communication. Although, I must say that the thought of a robot being able to understand my emotions (even if I guess it is still very rudimentary at this point or do you know otherwise/ know more about how far they are with the development?), is a very scary thought. Maybe I have watched too many dystopian science fiction films and television shows but robots being able to understand and react to humans in such an intimate way like dealing with emotions, makes me wonder how far machines might be able to go one day. How do you feel about this possible negative aspect? However, as you describe, robots would be extremely useful for people who are lonely and would engage with inanimate object for lack of human interaction otherwise. Most importantly because it increases patient’s health.

You say that for other users (such as teenagers) you would not agree that robots make good companions as they lack the sociability that communication with other humans provide. Would you thus, say that you agree with Turkle that the development that we are increasingly tethered to our devices, or in the case of companion robots, to the robot is a rather negative change? Or would you go even further and say that it is destroying real life human interactions and with that also development, as Mendelson and Papacharissi suggest? I completely agree that we need real human interaction to become strong independent adults and show growth of character. And for this body language and real-life contact is very important. Albeit, and probably (again I am not quite sure where scientific and technological advancement is at the moment) quite a futuristic/ fictitious line of thought, there is the possibility of humanoid robots. These might become near to un-identifiable to humans. To give an example would be Siri, who over the recent years has more and more developed into a less machine-like and more human-like sounding voice. Do you think these could be suitable for companionship or friends for teenagers?

I completely agree that it is scary how tethered we are to our devices. I remember an incident or two where I was searching for my phone while at the same time holding it. It sometimes feels like we have become one with the phone, and that it is like glasses. In order to navigate life properly I need to see, thus I need to wear my glasses. And in this day and age I need my phone to be always-on and reachable. Would you agree with this?

Thank you for your detailed answers to my questions.

MaryCastoridae56 (discuss • contribs) 14:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Mary, I would love to continue this discussion in my Collaborative Essay Research section of this wikibook. I copied your previous comment in, however, you will need to give it another time stamp, if you so choose to. I will get back to you very shortly!
 * Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 17:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

This bibliography is well written and highlights the key points in the article. In particular, you mention the article’s limitation which proves that more research needs to be done in this field. Mary mentions, she was not aware that much research was being done on Robot caregivers. A few years ago, I only became aware of this research when the company Hanson Robotics developed Sophia, the human robot.

To answer Mary’s question, in what way do you agree or disagree that robots can be a friend or companion? I personally believe that robots can be a friend. The robot has the ability to talk, walk and even provide you with information like a human being. Though, when it comes to the level of friendship, I think it will differ between each individual.

Celine Hunt (discuss • contribs) 9:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi summer, I enjoyed reading your peer review although it had nothing to do with my research question, it made me want to read the piece, The bibliography is well written and clearly shows how you have a deep understanding about the article. You included useful points as well as limitations which allowed there to be further research and discussion on the matter. I hope you are able to include the article into your study!

Hello Summer! This sounds like such a fascinating article for research! I have read some about the development of different types of robots and artificial intelligence in recent years, but I had never considered their uses as companions for the elderly, as this article explores. I think it has lots of interesting implications for our future, as robots and this type of research continue to expand. Your point about how the article is difficult to read and understand is very relatable- many times I have found that research articles that focus very heavily in technology like this can become heavy on jargon that I personally, do not understand in the slightest. However, I do think this topic can be helpful for your group as they continue their research, and I think you have done a wonderful job surmising the points of this article. Well done, and good luck as your group continues working on the collaborative essay! Mom00107 (discuss • contribs) 00:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

{reply to| Summer.schnellbach }} I was wondering could you picture yourself using/having a social robot caregiver when you get older? Celine Hunt (discuss • contribs) 16:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I have never really thought about it. It makes me sad to think that someday I'll be old and potentailly have nobody who wants to see me and I will get lonely. However, I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of having a robot caregiver, esoecially if they can do the job well when I am unable to take care of myself anymore. I like the idea of having a personal assistent (even if it is a robot) because nurses can get so overwhelmed with too many patients and not have adequate time to give each and every person the attention they deserve!Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 18:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense that you have never thought about it because this field of research is still in the works. After reading the piece and knowing a little about it before, I have thought about it. At first, I really did not like the idea of social robots because I feel like they take jobs away from people. As you mentioned,there are too many patients to take care of and not enough doctors, nurses and or time. Now, I think that these social robots for caregiving is not all to bad because they do listen and provide the elderly with the attention they need or even want.

When it comes to loneliness, I am not sure that these social robots can really cure the problem of loneliness. I can picture myself being lonely still even though there is a social robot in the room. I think this because I am fully aware that the robot is not a real human being but also because they do not have that 'real' sense of touch. Imagine holding your phone, do you feel anything (when it comes to your sense of touch)? For example, does it bring you comfort, love and etc. For me, I do not feel like a device like the phone really helps with loneliness. What do you think? Celine Hunt (discuss • contribs) 19:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Exercise 3: Collaborative Essay Research
According to Sherry Turkle, “Digital connections and the sociable robot may offer the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?

@MaryCastoridae56: I came across this area of study through doing a search in my home university's library database! I used to work in a nursing home, so when I hear of robots as companions or friends, I somehow immediately think of the elderly population in nursing homes who do not have the friends and companions they might have if they were still living on their own. I found this article by simply searching for "robot companions" through my school's database, where I was resulted with hundreds of articles and journals that discuss the topic. One that had popped up mentioned the elderly population and I was immediately drawn to it.

It is hard to choose one side or the other as to whether or not robots are capable of providing friendship and companionship. When discussing the elderly, like the above article discusses, I do think it is possible for robots to be a companion. The elderly who have been placed in nursing homes and care facilities get quite lonely. It is quite common that the spouse of the person in the home has passed away, or is no longer capable of caring for their spouse in the proper way. When they are in the care facility, too often that not the only "companion" they have is the nurse or nurse aid on duty. I have seen it myself, when I worked as a dietary aid in a nursing home, that the residents get so lonely. They are trapped in a tiny room, many of which resemble just a bedroom in a flat, and many do not get a lot of visitors. It was not part of my job to act as a companion or friend to the residents, and I was often yelled at for sitting in their room with them, or out in the common are with them, to talk and be a friends to them when they were lonely. In this way, I definitely agree that robots could be suitable companions, and even friends, to the elderly people in care homes. Some robots are able to artificially understand the emotions of others, and this can be quite useful for elderly people. As sad as it is, they do not even care who they are talking to, as long as someone is there with them. I have seen residents in nursing homes talking to dolls and taking care of the dolls because the toys have become their only "friend" even though the doll could not respond, or even care what they were saying or how they were feeling. If they had been talking to a robot, the robot could respond and understand the emotions of the residents at the nursing home. This would be very beneficial and positive to the emotional and mental health of the elderly residents.

When talking about another population, such as teenagers and young adults, I disagree with the idea that robots can be companions or friends. The robots are not able to provide the proper social setting that another human can. As teenagers and young adults, we learn how to communicate effectively and efficiently with others. Another person is able to provide us feedback and support in a way a robot cannot. We argue with our parents and friends, and we are able to learn from that and continue to build our relationships with those people. Proper communication is key to a strong relationship, and I just do not think that robots can provide the kind of communication that we need. Additionally, we learn and gather more from body language sometimes as opposed to verbal language, and although robots are being build to better comprehend body language, I do not think it is enough to have that true strong relationship like we would with another person.

In response to your second question, I do think that we are, and already have, become more tethered to our devices. It is scary how this is happening because I have seen how even in the fairly "newness" of this technology, people have become so consumed. A lot of people, I notice, would rather be connected in the Internet of Things than deal with humans in real life and in real time.

@Summer.schnellbach: Hi Summer.

Thank you for replying to my comment. I can definitely see how your employment history in a nursing home made you be interested in such an article. Maybe, depending on how fast and in what way technology advances in the near future that might even result in you (and many others carers) losing their job. This might also be applied to many different sectors. With technology and the Internet of Things increasingly taking over tasks that were previously only manageable by humans, we might face greater unemployability in certain sectors. Albeit, this might create help in sectors such as nursing where there is a large lack of staff.

I have heard many stories like yours of nurses and care takers going beyond their way and time to spend some time with people who are very lonely and often lack any sort of companion. Thus, I too agree with you that robots could be a companion or friend or at the very least some sort of engagement or even entertainment that is different than maybe more traditional media (such as television). This is as I assume that companion robots need the a more active or participatory communication. Although, I must say that the thought of a robot being able to understand my emotions (even if I guess it is still very rudimentary at this point or do you know otherwise/ know more about how far they are with the development?), is a very scary thought. Maybe I have watched too many dystopian science fiction films and television shows but robots being able to understand and react to humans in such an intimate way like dealing with emotions, makes me wonder how far machines might be able to go one day. How do you feel about this possible negative aspect? However, as you describe, robots would be extremely useful for people who are lonely and would engage with inanimate object for lack of human interaction otherwise. Most importantly because it increases patient’s health.

You say that for other users (such as teenagers) you would not agree that robots make good companions as they lack the sociability that communication with other humans provide. Would you thus, say that you agree with Turkle that the development that we are increasingly tethered to our devices, or in the case of companion robots, to the robot is a rather negative change? Or would you go even further and say that it is destroying real life human interactions and with that also development, as Mendelson and Papacharissi suggest? I completely agree that we need real human interaction to become strong independent adults and show growth of character. And for this body language and real-life contact is very important. Albeit, and probably (again I am not quite sure where scientific and technological advancement is at the moment) quite a futuristic/ fictitious line of thought, there is the possibility of humanoid robots. These might become near to un-identifiable to humans. To give an example would be Siri, who over the recent years has more and more developed into a less machine-like and more human-like sounding voice. Do you think these could be suitable for companionship or friends for teenagers?

I completely agree that it is scary how tethered we are to our devices. I remember an incident or two where I was searching for my phone while at the same time holding it. It sometimes feels like we have become one with the phone, and that it is like glasses. In order to navigate life properly I need to see, thus I need to wear my glasses. And in this day and age I need my phone to be always-on and reachable. Would you agree with this?

Thank you for your detailed answers to my questions.

MaryCastoridae56 (discuss • contribs) 14:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree that it is a frightening thought that robots could potentially authentically understand human emotions. I do not even watch or read anything about the topic like it seems you have, but it scares me to think what robots could be capable of in the not-so-distant future. I feel like there is a fine line between robots being companions and understanding emotions and crossing that line to potentially manipulate emotions and take over what we know as authentic companionship and friendship. I take my own emotions very seriously, especially since it has taken years for me to accept my emotions and learn how to deal with them in the appropriate manner. I would not like for a robot to have an equal, or better, understanding of my emotions because, as you said, it is such an intimate thing. It takes human beings time to build up trust to another person to where we can reveal our emotions and share those things with other people. However, this brings me to think that technology in general makes it easier for us to be transparent with our feelings, as it is easier to say something to someone online or through text without facing them in reality. Would you agree that this is true? Would you agree that telling robots our feelings might be no different than telling Twitter our feelings? I personally go back and forth on this issue. It is honestly scary to really think about.

In response to your second question (Would you thus, say that you agree with Turkle that the development that we are increasingly tethered to our devices, or in the case of companion robots, to the robot is a rather negative change? Or would you go even further and say that it is destroying real life human interactions and with that also development, as Mendelson and Papacharissi suggest?), I would have to say I agree overall that being tethered to our devices, or a robot companion, is a rather negative change. We are losing our sense of authentic connectivity with other human beings and replacing it with a false and shallow idea of friendship through a screen. I would also go as far as saying that it is destroying human interactions and development. We rely so heavily on our devices to feel like we matter. How many times per day do we check social media for new likes or comments? How often do we seek approval solely through our devices and not face-to-face. I think that as robots progress into being more humanoid, we will continue to lose our real life human connectivity, relationships, and development.

I do not agree that robots such as Siri, even though they are being developed to be more human-like, could be good companions or even friends to teenagers. As I had mentioned previously, these years of a teenager's life are too fragile and vulnerable. I do not think a robot could ever understand that. Teenagers need other humans, and adults, to teach them and guide them into adulthood. They should not rely on a robot to be their friend.

I do agree with you that I feel the need to always have my phone on me to feel connected. Ironically, as I am typing this and trying to focus on what I am writing, my phone is buzzing beside me. I feel a strong urge to reach for it because I might be missing something important. I have to remind myself that it can wait a few more minutes. I feel the need to be "Always-On" so that I am aware of what is happening around me. I have tried to break this habit on multiple occasions (remember the screen time survey we did in workshop?) but I get so anxious without my device. Part of this is that I am a study abroad student and I want to stay in touch with friends and family, but I am fooling myself for using this as an excuse because I am the exact same way when I am home. It is definitely scary to really think about how technology controls us, and how much further it might go in the future.
 * Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 18:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your reply.

I must admit that I the engagement that I have with content that included humanoid robots is usually fictitious. Albeit, the content is sometimes really close to what we have in reality already, as for example in the Netflix show Black Mirror. I agree that there is a fine line between a companion robot that is there to help and support and one that is so advanced in its understanding of emotions that it could be potentially classed as human itself. I think these are ethical implications that scientists and technicians have to consider more and more, especially the more they advance within the field of Internet of Things. I would definitely agree that one needs time and human connections to build trust to open up to people. But I also agree that technology makes it easier to be more transparent. It might be because of the Online Disinhibition Effect that Suler describes in 2005 (Here is a full citation if you are interested in the article: Suler, J. (2005). The online disinhibition effect. International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 2(2), 184-188. Doi: 10.1002/aps.42 ). I think it feels like things said online matter less, although it might actually be the other way around cause a spoken word might be forgotten but nothing gets ever deleted off the internet once it is online. Additionally, the functionality of getting time to think about what we can write is really helpful. Although, when you have an intimate conversation it can be really harmful to not see the body language of your conversation partner.

Whether telling a humanoid robot and telling Twitter our emotions is the same is a really difficult question. There are so many things that influence this argument that one could probably write an entire book about it. So just as you I cannot decide for any side on this topic.

I myself see the negative trend of being tethered to our devices. I try to not use my phone that often but rely more on face to face conversation. Albeit, I am an international student so my life is always half lived online as no matter where I am (at university or at home) some of my close friends and family are only reachable through online connections. So as much as I hate that real human interactions suffer, sometimes online communication is the only way to actually remain in contact.

I too feel like I am sometimes fooling myself that I will be different when I am home and can actually disconnect. I feel like at university I just cannot disconnect. Even without a phone I always have to monitor the university online accounts to keep on top of updates. But I have set myself the challenge to disconnect over the summer for a while. And hopefully I will be able to manage that. Because, when I am spending real quality time with friends and family I hardly check my phone. As is even evident on my Instagram as there is no single picture from my Christmas break. If that fails maybe it is just about pacing oneself. Putting the always-on devices away for some time a day. I do not think there is a solution because nowadays too much is only available online.

Thank you for your comment again. MaryCastoridae56 (discuss • contribs) 10:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Exercise 4: Collaborative Essay Reflective Account

 * What kind of platform is Wikibooks?

Wikibooks is a collection of books, whether they be textbooks, guides, manuals, or essays like we had done for our Collaborative Essay. For this class, Digital Media and Culture, we were able to add content related to our chosen research topic, collaborate with other users across different pages and books, and have our own personal discussion page as well. On Wikibooks, users are able to engage with other books and other users as well which makes it a community-based platform.


 * In what ways does it emphasis visibility, and why?

Wikibooks emphasizes visibility because anyone can see what a person writes and publishes. Additionally, anyone can also see another user's contributions, how much they have added or deleted on a certain wiki page. For example, anyone in FMSU9A4 can see this post and every other contribution I have made to the wiki platform, as well as any other wiki user who comes across my page or a page that I have been mentioned in. Every contribution needs to be/should be signed in order to track contributions as well. All contributions are time stamped as well to give readers and other users an idea as to how recent and relevant the information is.


 * In what ways can it be used to help facilitate collaborative research? (draw from your own observations from the project)

I have found that the Wiki platform can be very helpful in facilitating collaborative research. It is quite easy to comment and reach out to other users on any wiki page and they can reply directly onto the page as well. In my own experience, having the ability to collaborate with other users made research easier because we could bounce ideas off of each other. I felt more useful as well being able to help other users and add external links for others to use for ideas.


 * In what ways does Wikibooks foster a community?

Wikibooks fostered a community in a way that I didn't expect. I was able to connect with others on ideas that we were all equally interested in. It can be difficult to find people who have the same ideas as you when given a certain topic, so it was nice that for the collaborative essay, we were able to collaborate with others even though we were writing about different topics. In this way, we were able to offer each other ideas even though it wasn't our own area of interest that we were writing about for our own essay. This allowed for us to build a community online with our classmates. It was nice to have this community online since we only had one face-to-face lecture at the beginning of the semester.


 * In what ways does online collaboration represent a digital commons?

Online collaboration represent a digital commons in that Wiki is a shared online space in which people share ideas and do research together. For our online collaboration, we were able to meet in this digital "shared space" and work together and do our research. We all have equal ownership of the space.


 * Do wiki platforms offer potential for online emancipation? Why/not?

I think the answer is both yes and no as to whether wiki platforms offer potential for online emancipation. Yes, in that it allows users to add any ideas they please and not have their ideas shut down. It allows for voices to be heard and ideas to be known that others may not have thought of. On the other hand, it might not allow for online emancipation because other user can go in at any time and delete what has been previously published. This act can inhibit other users' freedom to publish what they feel is important or a necessary addition to the conversation at hand.

Character Count: 3,194

Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 16:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Hello

I hope you enjoyed the last wiki assignment and reflecting on the your and your group’s work on the collaborative essay and your encounter with Wikibooks as a platform and the Wiki MarkUp as an uploading system. I really like the layout of your reflective account as it is really structured. You show that you can draw and reflect on your own experience when answering the questions. It might, however, be useful to add a source or two here and there. For example, when you define the kind of platform Wikibooks is and when you draw on the notion of digital commons. I have found the commons definition that Berry suggests very useful. If you want to read up on this you can find it here: Berry, D. (2008). Copy, rip, burn: The politics of copyleft and open source. London: Pluto Press.

Reading your assignment, I have a few follow up questions: Firstly, when it comes to visibility, what do you in your own opinion think of Wikibooks’s high transparency when it comes to contributions? For me personally, because every edit and change could be tracked back and seen by anyone, I always made sure to double check what I was uploading. For example, I would type up everything externally on Word and do the rough edit there until I had a result that hopefully did not have any mistakes and was a quality contribution. However, I am also wondering if it might be defeating the purpose of the contributions a bit. This is because in a sense, the collaborative nature of the platform gives you the option to upload a text with mistakes etc. and for others to be your proof-reader.

Secondly, you rate the collaborative process of the essay really positively. Overall, I found the community, sharing and having someone else proofread my contributions or pitch new ideas/ arguments very helpful as well. However, there were times when I would need an immediate or quick reply or contribution from someone to continue with my work but had to wait until they did their upload. So, in a sense that sometimes hindered my progress, within my schedule a bit. Did you have similar experiences?

Additionally, what did your collaborative process look like? Did you solely rely on discussions through Wikibooks or did you and your group meet up in person occasionally too? If so what did you find more productive and easier for the essay process? My group and I did a combination of online discussion and face-to-face meetings. Especially in finalising the essay and layout on the platform it was quicker to discuss minor edits such as bold versus italic or font size in person.

I too really enjoyed collaborating with others outside of my own essay. This gave me the chance to also explore topics that were not part of our essay but nevertheless of my interest. What I enjoyed most was finding people who had similar views on topics like I did. Without the platform I probably would have never had this kind of quality engagement outside of a classroom about the module’s topics.

You show that Wikibooks can lead to online emancipation but does not necessarily do so. So, I am wondering if you yourself felt emancipated or inhibited when working on your collaborative essay and contributing to other people’s discussion pages?

All in all, this was a really well written and reflective piece. Well done! Good luck with any outstanding assignments and exams! MaryCastoridae56 (discuss • contribs) 09:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Summer!! You have done an excellent job summarizing and sharing your experiences with the Wikibooks platform, as well as exploring the benefits and collaborative aspects in this reflection. I appreciate how you have your reflection broken down into different sections-it makes this much easier read. I agree with your assessment of the Wikibooks platform. It does seem particularly suited to collaboration. I appreciated that you pointed out that it is a collection of books and articles-after so long working on the platform, I forgot that there are other groups of people collaborating on different projects! Additionally, I agree with your assessment of visibility on the Wikibooks platform. All the users are highly visible in their commenting and works on the website. What do you think about this high degree of visibility? It is certainly useful for collaboration on a project, but is there any potential downside to this visibility that you can see or think of? It terms of using Wikibooks to do collaborative research, again I agree with you this platform is useful. I thought that being able to work on a group assignment with other people without having to meet face to face is greatly beneficial. So often it is difficult to find a time or place where all group members can meet up and discuss projects face to face, and this platform allows users to cut through these difficulties. I liked your point about the ease of bouncing ideas off of other people on Wikibooks. In my experience, it indeed was easier to share or find other ideas that were useful on the platform. Reading through and discussing my work and others work with direct feedback made working on the collaborative essay much easier. People would ask questions that would make me reconsider my work or show me a new side to the research I was doing. Did you experience this as well, while your group was working on your collaborative essay? I’m glad that using Wikibooks also made you feel more useful when working on this project! It’s always so nice to get that feeling when you’re working in a group. It seems that you and I had very similar experiences using the Wikibooks platform, because once again I agree with your assessment of Wikibooks as a community building website. I didn’t anticipate interacting with others outside of my group nearly as much as I did when working on the project. I know that getting comments back on my work, and discussing my topic with others who weren’t researching it definitely improved my overall product on the collaborative research assignment. Did you experience this as well? Even reading the annotated bibliographies of others in the FMSU9A4 page would help me find good resources to continue my research. It was a fun and interesting experience to interact with other users, especially, as you pointed out, we wouldn’t have been able to get to know many of our other class members who weren’t in our seminar without this platform. Our class page alone had so many different people to interact with, all working towards a common goal. Do you think there are other pages and communities of this size on the platform, and with this level of discussion and interaction? I also agree that we all had equal ownership of the Wikibooks space. Due to the fact that we were all working together and contributing, even on different group projects, to create an overall Digital and Media Culture Wikibooks book, I think we all should get credit for the work done. I also liked the point that you make in your section about the limits emancipation on Wikibooks- I had considered that anyone could go onto the page at anytime and delete work done. Obviously, this is an option, but I hadn’t ever thought about someone doing this on a page. It definitely could, as you point out, limit the emancipation of the platform. Overall, your summary is a job well done! Mom00107 (discuss • contribs) 12:43, 13 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:
 * Excellent. Among other things, contributions will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. They will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including formatting, links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. They will address the assignment tasks in a thoughtful and transparent way on the Discussion Pages. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts, justifying decision-making with transparency. They will be informed by serious reading and reflection, are likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader as well as for fellow researchers collaborating. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.

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


 * The evidence from your contribs shows that you engaged with the collaborative process from most days that the project was live. There is plenty of evidence from your contribs that your engagement was sustained, meaningful and consistent throughout most of the project period. Not only were you engaging with your own group’s work, but you also did make a contribution to discussion with another group on one occasion – which suggests that you were at least beginning to see the value in the way that the book’s themes overlap significantly. In the round, these were very well constructed entries in terms of moving the project forward, and an appropriate level of engagement with the community is in evidence.

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


 * Several contribs registered as being under 1000 characters throughout the period, with a mix of others that are “significant”, or considered as “considerable” to the project. This is sustained, dedicated engagement with the collaborative process. Excellent work.

•	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


 * Again, very clear. You made the decision-making and discussion around ideas transparent, and encouraged others to comment/respond. There’s also plenty of evidence of reading, application and discussion of ideas.. Your contributions to the book pages and discussion pages clearly stand out. Excellent.

•	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


 * You were clearly collaborating on the discussion pages. It is true that some of the organisation here is a little haphazard (which is half-expected, as wiki management is a challenge!), but overall the discussion is easy to follow. You have also signed where necessary, so it’s easy to see where your contribs fit into the overall discussion.

•	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 exceptionally well. Good work!

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:24, 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:


 * Excellent. Among other things, these entries will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. They will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. They will address the assignment tasks in a thoughtful way. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts. They will be informed by serious reading and reflection, are likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.


 * This work shows engagement of a consistently high quality, and sustained throughout most of the project period. Some really excellent work here.


 * It is true that some of the formatting is a little awry and could have been improved upon. Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts, as well as their presentation. 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. You have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion, and this is ultimately what discussion pages are all about. You engage other users in discussion in an open and critical way, and this is done in an open and accessible way.

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


 * Argument and analysis: very well-articulated and well-supported argument; especially evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position) and evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections); evidence of independent critical ability also shown throughout.


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)