User talk:TeamAlphaDGM

Hey guys, any ideas where we should start with this? Katie chambers (discuss • contribs) 17:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I've commented on everyone's discussions with the TeamAlphaDGM account so everyone should be able to access it. If everyone adds this page to their watchlists it means we can easily keep up with what's happening! Our topic is cognitive surplus. New section below just to list some ideas of what we should include! JenHale22 (discuss • contribs) 14:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Digital Media and Culture Yearbook 2014 - Chapter 4: Cognitive Surplus

Ideas
Free digital labour, the "hive mind" mentality, theories from Gauntlett and Shirky. JenHale22 (discuss • contribs) 14:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Picking central topics looks quite difficult - there seems to be a lot of crossover between Cognitive Surplus and Collective Intelligence, like the hive mind. Do you think its okay for us to talk about topics that might be covered in other chapters? Katie chambers (discuss • contribs) 13:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be a problem, as Greg said at the beginning of the module we're meant to look at the module collectively and not treat each week as separate to the next. JenHale22 (discuss • contribs) 11:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys, I just found this video on cognitive surplus by clay shirky, I've not watched it yet so not sure how useful it will be, but I thought I'd post it here anyway http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_cognitive_surplus_will_change_the_world Katie chambers (discuss • contribs) 12:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I just watched that video - he talks a bit about how generosity is part of cognitive surplus, so that could be another main concept? Katie chambers (discuss • contribs) 14:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I found the link to the wiki page about the Cognitive Surplus book written by Clay Shirky, I think the chapter list provides some good ideas for main concepts. There are a few copies of the book available in the library which would probably be useful for us. Katie chambers (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The TED talk was really useful, definitely agree that generosity is an important part. Shirky also spoke about creating value -the examples he used were civic and communal value. I think we should mention it, but as a sub topic? I read the link on the resource list ("Digital Maoism" by Lanier) and he focused on the hive mind and the collective. Think we should mention these but again as a sub topic. However, I think this resource will be very useful for putting together our presentation, since it discusses the use of Wikipedia in detail. JenHale22 (discuss • contribs) 21:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/05/ff_pink_shirky/2/ found this interview with Shirky and another theorist, Pink, on the internet. Although it doesn't go into much detail I think it's useful in how it describes cognitive surplus in a way that's easy to understand. Pink also talks about humans having a "third drive" called "intrinsic motivation" which is quite interesting. JenHale22 (discuss • contribs) 20:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I found this link quite helpful in understanding what the concept is as it gives it some context in a real world example. http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/06/clay-shirkys-cognitive-surplus-is-creating-and-sharing-always-a-more-moral-choice-than-consuming/ Markconnor7 (discuss • contribs) 11:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it would fit in anywhere with the page but an interesting statistic nonetheless: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/cognitive-surplus-visualized/ Markconnor7 (discuss • contribs) 11:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Those links were really useful! Its always good to understand how the theory relates to real events. I thought maybe in our main concepts section we could talk about the disadvantages/criticisms of cognitive surplus? Not sure how much there would be to write on it, but I'm reading through Clay Shirky's book and he talks about how some people are skeptical because "sharing at a scale that competes with older institutions is somehow wrong". He also mentions that people have accused shared software production as being communist. Not sure whether to include these or not because they're kind of subjective/ peoples opinions, and I think wikibooks is just meant to be facts. What do you think? Katie chambers (discuss • contribs) 13:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

That first link you posted, Mark, is really interesting. I don't know if anyone else noticed but someone from the other group has posted at the very bottom of this discussion. I've got in touch with her, so hopefully we can begin to engage with the other group who are working on cognitive surplus as well. Will be interesting to see how similar/different our ideas are! JenHale22 (discuss • contribs) 01:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

So from what we mentioned in the facebook group our main concepts could be: the hive mind, free digital labour, web 2.0, generosity, motive and value? And then if anyone thinks of anything else we can add it in :) Katie chambers (discuss • contribs) 21:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, as discussed on Facebook I'll start work on motive this evening and will update as to how I'm getting on so other people can contribute and edit it. Markconnor7 (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm currently working on the concept of the "hive mind" mentality, will post something later tonight. However it does look like it is closely linked with web 2.0, so they could potentially be amalgamated. Still have a bit of reading to do on the subject though. JenHale22 (discuss • contribs) 19:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, I am aware that I have not properly referenced my latest contribution. I have put surnames in brackets but will find out how to properly reference on Wikibooks. JenHale22 (discuss • contribs) 21:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm currently working my way through Motives and will formalise what I've got written tomorrow when I've finished reading it properly. Should have it posted in the book either tomorrow night or Wednesday. Markconnor7 (discuss • contribs) 21:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I was just having a look through the discussion and found the link that Mark posted really interesting. Always find it much easier to understand when there is a real life example present. Also, following on from what Katie was saying about the criticims of cognitive surplus, I found a Guardian article which includes some criticism of Shirky's work itself that might be worth researching. Not sure if we're including any criticisms because it is more opinion than anything else but I thought it was worth posting anyway. http://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/jul/10/cognitive-surplus-connected-clay-shirky

JordanRuddy (discuss • contribs) 00:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I've began working on the topic of generosity. It kinds of ties in with other topics but I'll aim to get it sorted in the next couple of days. JordanRuddy (discuss • contribs) 00:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a good idea to include criticisms as well so that we're not biased. Great, Katie and I were just discussing how it would be good if we could all try and post some content by tomorrow so that we have time to edit and format it, and collaborate with the other group. I found the lecture very useful today as it went into more depth on the idea of collective intelligence so I'm going to edit that just now. In terms of referencing, as Greg said we can reference it as we see fit. I think we may aswell use APA because that's what we're used to using - does everyone agree? JenHale22 (discuss • contribs) 12:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I can try and write a bit about criticisms tonight then, think everyone has topics now so its going spare. APA sounds good to me! I'll have to read up on how to use it again, all my modules use different referncing systems so its easy to get confused. It still uses footnotes doesn't it? I'm reading through that link Jen posted earlier with the interview with Pink and Shirky, thought it might be useful because it mentions another theorist, since a lot of what we've been reading so far has been Shirky's work. Katie chambers (discuss • contribs) 13:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Try that app, ReferenceME. Basically scan the book and it does it for you, lifesaver! Just make sure it's set for APA and not Harvard! JenHale22 (discuss • contribs) 14:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I am happy just to use APA as well. I think I have sorted out my 'not existing' problem, can anyone confirm that my user profile is actually there now? Markconnor7 (discuss • contribs) 17:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, does anyone have any thoughts on what Greg was saying about posting our Facebook onto here? We have done the majority of our chatting there after all so might be worthwhile. Markconnor7 (discuss • contribs) 17:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried that app Jen, really helpful! Think I might use that for all my essays in the future. As for the facebook chat, would we have to each individually copy and past what we said? Or can one person just copy the whole thing? I found the wikipedia page about referencing, and it seems quite straightforward! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_place_an_inline_citation_using_ref_tags I think I set up the reference list in the reference section properly, so references should automatically appear there when you cite things in your text. Katie chambers (discuss • contribs) 19:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I think it's a good idea to put criticisms in, I can give a hand with it if you need any help. And yeah I'm happy to use APA to reference the work. JordanRuddy (discuss • contribs) 20:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Just on the topic of referencing, if nobody has access to the app that Jen recommended I'd recommend you use citethisforme.com. Always helped me with essays! Markconnor7 (discuss • contribs) 21:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I've written up most of my stuff about motives now but am still wondering where exactly to put it in the book. It doesn't come under concepts or theorists so would it be a section on its own? Just wondering what you all thought. Jordan and I were thinking that because he is doing generosity and I am doing motive that we would sort of put both of those sections together seeing as they tie in quite well. They are both fairly sizeable sections as well so there should be a good bit of content there. Markconnor7 (discuss • contribs) 22:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Just thought I'd reiterate what Mark was saying. After gathering my notes on generosity I realised how much it does tie in with motives and thought that it could follow motives in the wikibook. Wondering what you's thought on the idea? JordanRuddy (discuss • contribs) 22:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I've pretty much got all of my notes in order for generosity so I will be able to upload that on the page tomorrow for edit. JordanRuddy (discuss • contribs) 22:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Since generosity and motive are chapters in Shirky's book, maybe they could go in the section for that? JenHale22 (discuss • contribs) 11:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So put it in the theorists bit? Markconnor7 (discuss • contribs) 13:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm doing a part of my generosity section on the Ted Talk he delivered in 2010. I noticed on the page there is already a Ted Talk section. However, I'm focusing on a different aspect than what has been written in the Wikibook which is directly related to motives. Just wondering if you's think I should still keep it with the motives section or pair it with the Ted Talk section? JordanRuddy (discuss • contribs) 14:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I personally think that your generosity section should go in with Motive sub heading, just because they link in quite well. Don't know if anyone else thinks that there's a better place for them? Markconnor7 (discuss • contribs) 14:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That's me posted my stuff on Motives ready to edit Markconnor7 (discuss • contribs) 14:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

At first I thought it would have been better for it to go with the motives sub heading since it's relatable, but I'm starting to think the TED Talk part of my generosity section should go with the TED Talk section. I think it'd be neater for the wikibook if the book section is stuff specifically from the book and the TED Talk section from the talk. What does everyone think? JordanRuddy (discuss • contribs) 14:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've also got a section on generosity from the book so that could go in with the motives sub section. JordanRuddy (discuss • contribs) 14:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know about text formatting? Markconnor7 (discuss • contribs) 21:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mark, this link from wikibooks is very useful, I have used it for text formatting on my topic, "Always-On" culture, come over and check out my contributions to the page! If you need any other help just ask! https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX/Text_Formatting Thesmallerandrew (discuss • contribs) 21:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, thanks for your help. I'll be sure to stay in touch if I need any further assistance Markconnor7 (discuss • contribs) 21:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The chapter seems to be coming together quite well! I'll hopefully be able to help fill in some of the definitions tomorrow as well. 139.153.54.182 (discuss) 22:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been looking for criticisms of cognitive surplus but there doesn't seem to be much! I've mostly just found critical reviews of the book so far rather than the actual concept. Do you think there's any other section we could slot it into rather than making a whole section just for a sentence or two? Katie chambers (discuss • contribs) 11:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You could maybe just put it under the book section? Markconnor7 (discuss • contribs) 14:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries Mark! I'm posting some more stuff up on "Always-On" culture which you are welcome to read! Any time man! Thesmallerandrew (discuss • contribs) 20:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as we have until 5 o clock tomorrow to finish this, does anyone have any last minute ideas? What does everyone think about the structure? I was thinking it might be better to have the main bulk of the content in the 'main concepts' section, and then just have brief summaries of each of the theorists work (a couple of lines) in the 'main theorists' section, what do you think? It might be a bit confusing to switch around now, so it just depends what everyone thinks is best. Katie chambers (discuss • contribs) 22:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally I think it'd flow better as a book if the bulk of the content came under the main concepts section. The way it is just now it might look to some as if there aren't many concepts. JordanRuddy (discuss • contribs) 22:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, a lot of the content in the main theorists section can be treated as main concepts seeing as there is so much information on them, especially the Shirky stuff, seeing as the whole cognitive surplus thing is kind of his idea. Also, when I referenced my value section, I ended up referencing the same pages over and over, do you think there is any way to link all of the references into one citation rather than having a list of about 6 nearly identical ones in the bibliography? Katie chambers (discuss • contribs) 22:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Or should I make the first reference a footnote and then use in-text citations in brackets after that? Katie chambers (discuss • contribs) 22:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I was going to suggest making one reference and writing pg173-175 for it but I see you've already sorted it. I've finished my bit on generosity, do you want me to put it in the main concepts section or under Shirky? JordanRuddy (discuss • contribs) 23:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I was going to write up some of the generosity section from the TED Talk that Shirky delivered but someone from the other team has already written about that so I decided to leave it. I still have a lot of content from the book though. JordanRuddy (discuss • contribs) 00:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good Jordan! The page is really taking shape now. Will get some editing done before 5! JenHale22 (discuss • contribs) 09:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Think I'm going to move the motives section into main concepts, what do you think? Feel free to move it back, I just think it links in quite well with the value section! Katie chambers (discuss • contribs) 10:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a line in the introduction about how we spend a trillion hours watching tv, does anyone have a reference for this? Katie chambers (discuss • contribs) 10:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/cognitive-surplus-visualized/ that has the figure about the amount of tv, it is also in the book somewhere, not sure where though! Markconnor7 (discuss • contribs) 14:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikibooks / Class Projects
Hi, it appears that this user account is part of a class or group project. We hope you are able to achieve your aims here at Wikibooks. It is recommended to read Using Wikibooks/Class Project Guidelines to find out more about how group projects can work here and Using Wikibooks for a more general introduction to the Wikibooks project.--ЗAНИA talk 19:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

THE GO TEAM
Hey guys, I notice that your group are also focusing on Cognitive Surplus. The rest of my group and I were wondering if we could discuss with you guys how both of our groups could contribute to the wikibook page to make it a joint effort as we don't want to overlap each other's information! It would be interesting to know what aspects your group are searching and therefore my group can maybe look at another aspect of cognitive surplus that you guys haven't. I found your discussion page through Wikibooks and its a good idea! Message me on my discussion page to let me know what you think...and apologies for messing up your group discussion page but I wanted to post somewhere you guys are most likely to see! Kate Galbraith (discuss • contribs)

Hey guys, I have started to write about Shirky's book "Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age", but I don't have a copy of it (I'm using the google books preview of it right now). The library says that it's currently on loan, but if any of you guys have a copy of it, could you add some info to that part? Thanks! Katmcknight.nitx (discuss • contribs) 15:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I have also created a section on Main Theorists. At the moment, I have added some information on Shirky with subcategories for his book (as mentioned above) and his TED Talk, which I see you have discussed already. I have also created a section for Lanier and will write about some of his ideas on the topic. Are there other theorists we should mention? Katmcknight.nitx (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Sounds good. Basically nearly everyone in our team has taken a topic/chapter in the book to discuss, so we'll hopefully get some of that done tonight! Only other theorist I can think of is Gauntlett, but his work in this area isn't as important as Shirky and Lanier's. JenHale22 (discuss • contribs) 19:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That's good that your group is tackling the book, we could focus more on the theorists then. There was some good information in today's lecture that we could write about too. Our team will be meeting in the seminar and we will discuss what else we will do, and let you guys know! Katmcknight.nitx (discuss • contribs) 10:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

We've briefly mentioned Daniel Pink before, not read much of his work though so I don't know how relevant it will be! He probably can't be counted as a main theorist, but it might be something worth looking into for some of the main concepts. Katie chambers (discuss • contribs) 13:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, would it be possible to move the part 'Key Theorists' from the Key Concepts section to the 'Main Theorists' section? I don't know if it was written by someone from our group or yours, but this way things will be more consistent. The page is coming together nicely! Katmcknight.nitx (discuss • contribs) 15:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

And looking at your discussion, we'll all use APA referencing? That sounds good to me, I'll make sure our group knows too! (and I'm sorry if it's like I'm spamming here, it just really helps to communicate with your guys!) Katmcknight.nitx (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Not spamming at all, if your group want to discuss the page on here with us that's fine! Makes things more consistent. Do you have a group discussion page? I completed the section on collective intelligence. I was thinking that too - the only thing is I feel that the descriptions both link to collective intelligence and it might be confusing if they're moved further down? JenHale22 (discuss • contribs) 16:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I just made a section on our group discussion page for you guys User_talk:FMS9A4-TheGoTeam. Maybe if it's made clear then (for example Key Theorists in Collective Intelligence) and then say that more information is located below in the Main Theorists section? I think that would work okay! Katmcknight.nitx (discuss • contribs) 16:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I notice someone has done referencing.. Yay! But how do you do it? LittleLauraBeaton (discuss • contribs) 08:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Katie and I have started some of the referencing. I just removed the citation then clicked the "reference" button, it's on the toolbar beside font tools etc, a little book icon. Then I just typed in the full reference and that's it! Though if part of the reference is in italics you need to fix that before posting because it doesn't save the formatting. So just use the reference inside the the ref tags and highlight the bit you need and use the italics button - ctrl I doesn't work. Hope this helps! JenHale22 (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Also, I'm going to start listing what words will need to go in the glossary, so if you come across any words that you think need to go in there can you post them to my group's discussion page, please? LittleLauraBeaton (discuss • contribs) 12:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've put the information on de Kosnik and Terranova into categories about them, to keep it organised. Let me know if it should be changed/added to. I'm writing a short introduction to them as well. Katmcknight.nitx (discuss • contribs) 15:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I also think we could move the part on Copyright up to the Main Concepts and then create a subcategory for Lessig. How does that sound? Katmcknight.nitx (discuss • contribs) 15:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Mark, I've done those definitions.. feel free to add to them/change them. LittleLauraBeaton (discuss • contribs) 15:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, just letting everyone know what I'm doing just now. Reading through the wikibook and double checking the spelling and grammar, and that the format is the same the whole way through it. Going to have a look and see if I can add anything into the generosity part of it about civic value because Greg says that's the part our group really missed out on. Kristddd (discuss • contribs) 22:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)