User talk:Tech Determinism group A

Hey guys so here are the sections:

Title section Main concepts: - definitions with examples - context/origin - notable determinists - criticism/debate - technological imperative

Glossary/references

Right so everybody pick a section and all contribute to glossary page!

Wooooooooooo

AlexaSoccer (discuss • contribs) 12:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool, this is just a quick, draft intro to get us started

Intro- The definition of technological determinism can be regarded as the cultural implications of new media, by bringing into concern the history behind media theory and production and the way these frameworks develop social and cultural structures. With media technologies constantly developing allowing for instant and convenient communication, theorists have argued that this has influenced social progressions. New media technologies have revolutionised everyday life to an extent where humans are able to form self-identifications through social networking, consume media productions through television, computers and other means and also communicate from a local to a global scale. By assessing theorists work such as Marshall McLuhan who poses the idea that reforming media affects how humans distinguish and value the world around them and the differences between media such as what McLuhan states as ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ media, we can establish how technology is determined through the shaping of cultural and social formations.

AnnieMCook (discuss • contribs) 13:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Sickk! Well done - why don't you do just go ahead and have the intro as your section. I'll do Technological Imperative as mine. When do you think we should post them to the main page?

AlexaSoccer (discuss • contribs) 10:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Technological Imperative Technological imperative is the assumption that technology cannot be stopped in its development, and that technological progress is irreversible, unavoidable, and inevitable. Essentially, this theory assumes that because we are able to do something because of a particular technology, we ought to, must, or will do it. It is the theory that what can be done, will be done.

This is important to technological determinism as it recognizes the influence of technology on action. It drives society to act on not only what they are able to do, but also push the boundaries and test limits because, as John von Neumann observed, “technological possibilities are irresistible to man”. (Mumford 1971, p. 186) With this, the theory acknowledges the shift from technology as a means to technology as an end. Critics of the theory, including Jacques Ellul and Ivan Illich, argue that the theory of technological imperative cannot be fully accurate, as not all areas of available progress are being exploited. The main argument stems from the lack of drive to create renewable energy sources.

Here's a start to my section!

I think we should aim to have a start of everybody's bit up by Wednesday?

AlexaSoccer (discuss • contribs) 09:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sweet! That's really good, yeah I forgot to reference mine, well done for remembering. Yeah Wednesday is a good aim!

Yeah think that's a good idea. So it's just context/origin, notable determinists and criticism/debate left? Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 15:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone found any really good readings for our topic?

Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 12:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at the lecture slides- Marshall McLuhan, Raymond Williams, Daniel Chandler, etc. AnnieMCook (discuss • contribs) 14:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Looked at a few of the other groups, how do you want to lay it out, shall we have theorists first and a bit about them, or concepts along with theorists? AnnieMCook (discuss • contribs) 14:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I think we should seperate it into two main parts - technological determinism and the opposite view of cultural determinism. Then maybe outline the theorists and theories associated with each? Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 14:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's a good idea. It's tricky because everything overlaps/connects! AnnieMCook (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well we should be able to talk about how we overcome that issue for our presentation, woo progress! Ok i'm happy to give "Notable Determinists" and try and have some content up for later this evening. I will make sure to link any sources i find to you guys Connor Zahariev (discuss • contribs) 17:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok guys i found some useful academic reading available here This linkConnor Zahariev (discuss • contribs) 17:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Some further reading that I believe will be useful for assisting in the writing of the origin/context sections http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/tecdet/tdet02.html Connor Zahariev (discuss • contribs) 18:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Ooh thats good, I'll have a look! I've just done a bit on television as being a technology with a cause an effect which I think links to cultural determinsim. I'll just post it up here first..

Raymond Williams ‘insists that the future of our media will depend on our capacity to make informed judgements and decisions about that future.’ Our world, society and history are continually altered by whatever new technology comes along: the steam engine, the automobile, the atomic bomb. (Williams, 2003:1). Technology such as television is often argued that it has effects on social behaviour and cultural and psychological conditions. However these effects are the result of the technology being the cause. The notions of a cause and effect between a technology and society, a technology and a culture and a technology and a psychology are quite complex to apply answers and theories to. Williams, however goes on to analyse specifically television as a technology that results in cultural pattern shifts. Williams states that television has altered our world. In this sense it has been created ‘as a result of scientific and technical research’ yet television has been used in many other forms:

•	As a tool for social communication to construct social relationships.

•	It provides us with certain perceptions of reality within the world

•	It provides a strong mode of communication through news and entertainment

•	Through television advertising is made possible to promote goods to society

•	It follows a set of systems to what society wants from television by attending to opinions and styles of behaviour from what is produced.

Arguably the development of television and overall technology cannot be assumed to purposefully direct society into conforming to change. Technology should be considered as a typical invention of which is accidental in its proceedings (Williams, 2003:5).

On the other hand, technology through significant media forces has reshaped the way in which humans behave, the structure of human societies and even language. Media even has the power to change governments (Collins & Evans, 2006:50). AnnieMCook (discuss • contribs) 18:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sweet! Ok I added subheadings to the main concepts section just thought i'd let you guys know Connor Zahariev (discuss • contribs) 18:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

After reading through the introduction it might be better to have the definition subheading under introduction rather than main concepts if you would rather split your introduction paragraph up Connor Zahariev (discuss • contribs) 21:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we could keep the definition section under main concepts and have a separate introduction because they are kind of different. Would give us more content too. Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 21:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The introduction sounds great well done, I think I'm getting to grips with this now after today's seminar and messing about on this for a bit. I'll happily cover the criticism's bit of of this and have this in after some reading, I'll post it on here first so you lot can have your say on it. I'll try get a few general resources as well. Remember our main way of engaging will be done by commenting on other groups and their pages, linking in our technological determinism on the posts of the other groups would be great. Would everyone want to meet up on Thursday? We could get one of the seminar type rooms in the library and stay there for a bit? Plus, sorry that I chose 'the coMEDIAns' as our group name, it's pretty bloody awful. (TallNorthernIrishEthan (discuss • contribs) 22:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

Top work guys. I've been swamped with work but I'm free from tomorrow now so I'll work on Context/Origin. Again, will post here first to make sure we're all happy with it first off. I'm more than happy to meet up on Thursday if needs be as I have a free day. Will have this done. ElliotNotEthan (discuss • contribs) 22:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I think that's a good idea to meet on Thursday and get a group study room. Can all work on it at the same time if we bring laptops. Haha nah I think the group name is pretty good actually! So could I work on the definition and bulk it out a bit? Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 22:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sick guys - Thursday sounds good! As for the tech/cultural determinism bit i think we should definitely stay heavier on the tech part because that's our actual topic. As for the subheadings it seems like we're getting more based on what we're doing with our original bit which is good! I think it's gonna be hard not to go to broad though so we should be careful. Also, we should think of ways to start linking to other groups? AlexaSoccer (discuss • contribs) 07:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

For the cultural determinism bit, how heavy do y'all want to make the content? What if we put that in the criticism bit as an alternative view? AlexaSoccer (discuss • contribs) 07:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah Connor, do you want to just edit that bit then? Thursday sounds great! For cultural determinism yeah it's to do with the way humans formate and behave from the way we are raised rather than how technology influences us, so it's definitely different! I think we can relate the two with a bit about Karl Marx maybe? Marx seems to be quite a key figure in social formations/changes (yeh I know he's everywhere...) What do you think? AnnieMCook (discuss • contribs) 08:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh and we can put him down as a notable determinist! AnnieMCook (discuss • contribs) 09:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I think you can have tech determinism as the main part then cultural/criticism as the alternative view point. Is it alright that I do definition? Think we should split the introduction and definition into two seperate parts and would like to work on bulking out the definition part a bit. Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 12:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea Sophie it allows us to put more detail into it but remember to take it out of the intro so we are not repeating points, it might also be a good idea to include a section that shows how Technological determinism underpins other areas such as always on etc... any thoughts? Connor Zahariev (discuss • contribs) 13:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Showing how it underpins other areas would allow us to make contact with other groups and have a decent area to start talking on when it came to the presentation I think. Connor Zahariev (discuss • contribs) 13:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant, I'll get cracking on with that then. Yeah I think that's a really good idea too, can talk to other groups and get more contribution as you say. Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 13:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Aside from Marshall McLuhan who would be considered a notable technological determinist? Has anyone found any reading on the matter? The best I seem to be able to find is Van Koten from the resource list? Connor Zahariev (discuss • contribs) 14:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys - was thinking about your bit when doing my piece on 'Always-on'. It ties in with McLuhan's work so I've written this extra bit (its at the end of this post) - I was going to post it on the main book but thought I'd check-in with you guys first. Let me know what you think. "McLuhan’s assertion that the medium is the message is perhaps now becoming a less unlikely theory than was first thought. He asserted that technology is like a bodily extension just like a hammer is an extension of the arm (REF) and the recent announcements by Google, Intel, and Facebook all that they were investing heavily in wearable technology is testimony to McLuhan’s theory. Facebook recently bought virtual reality technology firm Oculus VR for £1.2bn and Mark Zuckerberg claimed that “virtual reality will be the next social communications platform” (The Guardian, 25th March, 2014). His statement that this wearable technology will “change the way we work, play and communicate” (BBC 26th March, 2014) directly supports McLuhan’s stance. Google’s new smart glasses, called ‘Google Glass’ will be designed by the makers of Ray-Ban sunglasses and Oakley sports glasses to ensure they were at the cutting edge of fashion (The Guardian, 25th March, 2014; BBC 25th March, 2014). Google Glass is a small screen attached to a pair of glasses which can record video, access email, and retrieve information from the web by connecting wirelessly to a user's mobile phone. Intel, the world’s largest computer chip maker, increased its investment in wearable technology by buying Basis Science, a company that has devices and services for tracking a person’s health, and wanted to accelerate its position in wearable technology (BBC 26th March, 2014)." Cheers.George Berrie (discuss • contribs) 14:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a really good idea George, as I am currently doing a section on notable determinists would you be ok with me adding a link to your section under my explanation of McLuhans idea of technology extending the human body? Connor Zahariev (discuss • contribs) 14:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys thats me finished the section on McLuhans Global Village still have to do a section of his idea of technology extending the human body.

This is a term coined by McLuhan in reference to what he calls the Electronic culture that arises with the increased use of televisions and computers. A way of understanding this is that the improvement in technology has allowed for much quicker communication. In theory this allows for the entire world to be compressed into a Global Village where everyone can quickly communicate with each other, whereas in practice this has manifested itself through the internet allowing for an individual to have a much larger number of near constant social connections. A very recent example of this would be the case of popular social media site Facebook in which an average adult user is said to have 338 friends which clearly shows the breaking down of distance and ease of communication that McLuhan conveys in his idea of the global village. McLuhan also suggests that the people who live in this electronic culture, or global village gain all the benefits and downfalls of new technologies and so whereas distances are no longer a problem for communication, technology barriers and development or lack of it can still provide issues(Smith,R and Marx,L. 1994.)  Connor Zahariev (discuss • contribs) 15:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Connor - no problem with you making that link to our section under your explanation of McLuhans idea of technology extending the human body. Your material looks really good. Do you want me to paste the bit above onto your main page along with the references?George Berrie (discuss • contribs) 15:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That would be a great help and fits very nicely with our content thanks very much George. Connor Zahariev (discuss • contribs) 15:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that would be great George, thank you. I've booked a study room in the library for us all tomorrow if everyone can still make it. It's room 1 and booked from 12-4. Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 15:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I added a little more content to my Global Village part as i felt it was lacking This is a term coined by McLuhan in reference to what he calls the Electronic culture that arises with the increased use of televisions and computers. A way of understanding this is that the improvement in technology has allowed for much quicker communication. In theory this allows for the entire world to be compressed into a Global Village where everyone can quickly communicate with each other, whereas in practice this has manifested itself through the internet allowing for an individual to have a much larger number of near constant social connections. A very recent example of this would be the case of popular social media site Facebook in which an average adult user is said to have 338 friends which clearly shows the breaking down of distance and ease of communication that McLuhan conveys in his idea of the global village.(1) This can be also be further established by looking at the numbers of people that use the most common social networking sites, 1.23 billion monthly active users on facebook and over 1 billion unique youtube user visits per month. This puts people in potential contact with more people than they could meet or speak to in their lifetime and hence again strengthens the idea of the global village. Another idea of this is that through the quick access and speed of response that comes with this type of technology we are able to react to global issues far faster than previous. Therefore issues that may have once not have been of concern can be addressed by a much bigger crowd, this follows the same underlying concept of increasing technology reducing distances and effectively making the world a smaller more accessible place. McLuhan also suggests that the people who live in this electronic culture, or global village gain all the benefits and downfalls of new technologies and so whereas distances are no longer a problem for communication, technology barriers and development or lack of it can still provide Connor Zahariev (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok will do - I'll transfer it across when you main page has its headings and subheadings etc. so that I know where to put it.George Berrie (discuss • contribs) 16:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Great work Connor! I've been using Harvard referencing, but how do you guys want to reference so they're not all different? I think we should all start posting up on the main page so it's easier for everyone to see what informations been posted so nothing is getting repeated! I'm going to post up my little section on Raymond Williams in the criticism and debate section if thats ok? AnnieMCook (discuss • contribs) 18:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Tech Imperative Posting
Hey guys - here's what I'm going to post to the main page for my section... I posted to the Always On folk about using their disinhibition stuff so hopefully i'll put that in there soon! __________________________________

Technological imperative, also known as the inevitability thesis, is the assumption that technology cannot be stopped in its development, and that technological progress is irreversible, unavoidable, and inevitable. Essentially, this theory assumes that because we are able to do something because of a particular technology, we ought to, must, or will do it. It is the theory that what can be done, will be done, whether or not it is moral, good, or productive for mankind.

This is important to technological determinism as it recognizes the influence of technology on action. It drives society to act on not only what they are able to do, but also push the boundaries and test limits because, as John von Neumann observed, “technological possibilities are irresistible to man”. (Mumford 1971, p. 186) With this, the theory acknowledges the shift from technology as a means to technology as an end. Critics of the theory, including Jacques Ellul and Ivan Illich, argue that the theory of technological imperative cannot be fully accurate, as not all areas of available progress are being exploited. The main argument stems from the lack of drive to create renewable energy sources.

"Arnold Pacey suggests that the technological imperative is commonly taken to be 'the lure of always pushing toward the greatest feat of technical performance or complexity which is currently available' (Pacey 1983, p. 79). The mathematician John von Neumann wrote with some alarm that 'technological possibilities are irresistible to man.' (in Mumford 1971, p. 186). Jacques Soustelle declared of the atomic bomb that 'Since it was possible, it was necessary' (in Ellul 1964, p. 99). And fatalists might add that since we can now destroy the planet, in time we will. The technological imperative is a common assumption amongst commentators on 'new technologies'. They tell us, for instance, that the 'information technology revolution' is inevitably on its way and our task as users is to learn to cope with it."[1]

According to McLuhan, the media dictates the message - an argument that becomes extremely relevant when according to technological imperative, society is unable to resist the development of technology and so also the continual development of media platforms.

^ Chandler, Daniel. ‘’Technological or Media Determinism’’. 1995. 18 September 1995, http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/tecdet/tecdet.html,

AlexaSoccer (discuss • contribs) 18:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That's looking really good. I would just start posting it onto the chapter to get things going. Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 19:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeh Alexa just post it! AnnieMCook (discuss • contribs) 19:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Annie, yeah Harvard referencing would probably be easiest. What does everyone else think Yeah just post what you've got. Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 11:34, 3 April 2014

Ok cool! I've done something funny with the subtitling by the way, anyone have any ideas on what should go where? AnnieMCook (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's a few good books/ articles on the criticism of Technological Determinism we could use guys.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5ICAIT9YiFUC&pg=PA6&dq=criticism+of+technological+determinism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=30o9U6jeAsif0wX6rYGoAQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=criticism%20of%20technological%20determinism&f=false page 6/7.

http://www.kmentor.com/socio-tech-info/2003/10/critique-of-mcluhans-technolog.html (there's a few really good links at the bottom of this).

http://twelve.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-084-who%E2%80%99s-afraid-of-technological-determinism-another-look-at-medium-theory/

(TallNorthernIrishEthan (discuss • contribs) 11:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC))

Ok, I've just sorted the format of our sub-headings, hopefully this will make it a bit easier for us! AnnieMCook (discuss • contribs) 11:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I've just asked the reading room about linking to other chapters so we can link our topic with always on etc. Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

'Deterministic perspectives have been common amongst commentators on communication technologies. Theorists who have argued that changes in communication technologies have had an important cultural impact have tended either to regard such changes as limited to social and institutional practices or, far more radically, have argued that such changes have also had profound psychological consequences, transforming the nature of human consciousness.' I'm adding this into my section on origin and content but if anyone thinks its more relevant to their section feel free to use it. Took it from this site which is quite useful - http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/tecdet/tdet11.html ElliotNotEthan (discuss • contribs) 12:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok guys thats me done (some) of the writing for McLuhans idea of extending the human body, its short but i was thinking we could put Georges piece as a follow on from mine? thoughts? -- This is the assertion by McLuhan that technology are tools that extend the human body and more accurately, extend or amplifies the abilities of the visual and aural senses mainly. Examples of this would be the television extending the visual senses or the telephone extending the aural. McLuhan goes on to say that technology in fact changes the way we act in society and that nowadays people “wears its brain outside its skull and its nerves outside its hide” (McLuhan, 1966) (4.) Although at first this may seem an obscure and nonsensical view it can be comprehended in that much of the technology we use for interacting and viewing the world start at our fingertips and with the technology that we consume. Connor Zahariev (discuss • contribs) 13:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok I've just added my bit on the overview and definition of technological determinism. I've added this part for introduction: Technological determinism in its most basic form is the idea that technology has a significant effect on society. The theory presents the idea that technology is the reason for developments in our society, influencing our lives at a number of levels. Determinists believe that technology influences society on different levels; impacting on industry, the way we communicate and even shapes individuals.

Then I've put in a heading 'overview' and moved Annie's section with my additional part on strong/weak determinism:

Technological determinism comes in two main variations – a strong and weaker form.

•	Strong or hard determinism argues that technology is the foremost or sole reason for the way society is structured and any development in our culture. Technology is seen as the “prime mover in history” (Chandler, 2000:1).

•	Weak or soft determinism is a less extreme argument, more approved of by scholars. It sees technology as more of an enabler for societal change. Rather than viewing technology as the sole or primary reason for anything that happens in society, it takes into account other factors and argues that technology gives us opportunities for development but does not necessarily cause it. Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 13:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah Connor that's a good idea to put George's section in there and can add a link to their chapter. Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 13:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok Sophie that's fine! I'll do the section on science, history and technology if that's cool and I've added a bit onto Karl Marx AnnieMCook (discuss • contribs) 13:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Just about to add this to the criticisms bit, that okay?

Further criticism of Technological Determinism is found in the idea that the theory is written in a broad sense. McLuhan also fails to mention how technologies are constructed yet implicitly speaks of the way in which humans interact with technology. McLuhan also fails to acknowledge the idea of ‘technological innovation’ this is despite the fact that this technologies are created through the human interplay with various technologies that McLuhan holds in high regard (Cana 2003).

I'll add the references obviously!

(TallNorthernIrishEthan (discuss • contribs) 13:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC))

Ok thats me put the section on Marshall McLuhan on the book, ill message George to put his section and refrences in now. Connor Zahariev (discuss • contribs) 13:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Got your message Connor - will put my McLuhan section in now where you've suggested - cheers.George Berrie (discuss • contribs) 13:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just added general links of Online-identity and Always-on under the sub-headings AnnieMCook (discuss • contribs) 14:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Notable determinism being a main heading, think that's the right way to go. ElliotNotEthan (discuss • contribs) 14:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that i will add Hamid Van Koten to Notable Determinists, anyone else can feel free to add another determinist to this section if they so please. Likewise if you can contribute more to McLuhan you can also add to that Cheers. Connor Zahariev (discuss • contribs) 14:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Will do so, I'll try and have a look for others! Can anyone please help with the technology, science and history section? AnnieMCook (discuss • contribs) 14:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

So the reading room told me how to set up a link between chapters so have put links to chapter 2 and 3 under the headings of online identity and always on. What sort of thing are you looking at Annie? Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Like how science and technology have advanced throughout history, and its effects on the world etc. I've done a little bit but it's getting good examples I think and sources. Connor, how about Ray Kurzweil as a notable determinist? AnnieMCook (discuss • contribs) 15:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah ok, will have a look to find some sources to help with that. I've just added a paragraph to the section on how tech determinism links to always on. Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 15:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

After reading over the overview i realise it mentions hot and cool media types which we haven't discussed throughout the chapter yet so i will write a section up and put it under the Marshall McLuhan section Connor Zahariev (discuss • contribs) 18:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I got help with the links from our chapter to the others from the reading room so they work properly now.

Oh yeah, think we mentioned that before. Would you like me to help with any of the content? Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 18:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You could write the piece on Hamid Van Koten if you wanted to, my thought was to write about light on/through media and put it in the notable determinist section. I'd also mention how he had been fairly heavily influenced by McLuhan Reading from week 2 should help for this Connor Zahariev (discuss • contribs) 19:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that's brilliant, thanks! Will get on with that. Yeah sounds like it would be a good addition to the notable determinists section as we only have McLuhan right now. Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 19:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Sophie thats good! Ok well I'll help and do Ray Kurzweil as another one too AnnieMCook (discuss • contribs) 19:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know whether it was Van Koten who came up with the light on/light through notion? I know he writes about it but doesn't explicitly say who came up with it. Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 19:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately im not sure Sophie, That's me done the Hot or Cool media section though im going to go ahead and post ti to the book -- A way in which Mcluhan categorises different forms of media is through a temperature type scale in which there are both hot and cool types of media, as with much of McLuhan's writings this is not an initially intuitive process. A media type is considered hot if it heavily utilises and immerses one sense in particular. An example of this may be the comparison of a photograph which gives a large and detailed amount of visual information and hence a hot media form to a sketched cartoon which gives a minimal amount of information visually. (Van Koten, 2009) Furthermore McLuhan suggests that it is cool media that involves a higher amount of interpretation from the consumer than hotter forms of media. This can again be thought of as a photo presenting visual information more clearly where as a drawing may need to be interpreted in terms of shapes and colours and a have a meaning drawn less easily from this. Connor Zahariev (discuss • contribs) 19:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Also do you think it would be beneficial to add a table of different types of hot and cool media to this section? I was also thinking of adding a critisism section to hot and cool media and say why it is no longer applicable? Connor Zahariev (discuss • contribs) 20:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. Will just put it the light on/light through notion as an alternative to your section on hot and cool. Yeah think a table would be a good idea. There's quite a good one in the Van Koten reading or this website I found on hot and cool: http://tribes.tribe.net/marshallmcluhan/thread/72cd0899-94ec-42c2-a6db-2de4fa4cec1e and yeah criticism would probably be good too. Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 20:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Sophie that was very helpful, are you going to put it under Notable determinists or under criticisms? I thought you could have put it under notable determinists and mentioned that he was influenced by McLuhan and carried his ideas on. Just my thoughts on the matter, i'll get cracking with criticisms of hot and cool media categorisations. Connor Zahariev (discuss • contribs) 20:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No bother. Well I was going to put it under hot and cool media as it ties in really well with that and I can't find anything directly on Van Koten. He seems to have just written about other people rather than being a main theorist himself. Would that be ok with you?

This is what I have written so far...Similar to McLuhan’s idea of hot and cool media is the notion of light on and light through media. ‘Light on’ media is where the light source bounces off a surface or object before hitting the viewers’ eyes. Therefore the light is projected onto a screen (Van Koten, 2009). ‘Light through’ media is where the light source is positioned in front of audience; therefore making the audience the screen by projecting light onto them (Van Koten, 2009). In likeness to hot and cool media, ‘light on’ would be described as hot because it is “all revealing” where ‘light through’ is less revealing, more “mysterious” so therefore cool (Van Koten, 2009, p.91). An example of ‘light on’ media is cinema, with light coming from behind the audience and no room for interaction. An example of ‘light through’ media is television where the light projects from the TV onto the viewers and gives them more room for interpretation and interaction. Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 20:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That seems fair, here is my peice that i will put under the critisism section of the book on hot and cool media -- As McLuhan has the tendency of doing in his writing the Hot and Cool media temperature scale comes with a number of criticisms due to the somewhat vague nature it is described in. Firstly there is no actual way of measuring the temperature of a media form and so being able to determine is one type of media is hotter or cooler than another. This means that it is a subjective scale and that any consensus comes down to the opinions of the people using it, therefore leaving it prone to bias and somewhat less useful. To add to this the scale can only be used when comparing two media forms that have somewhat similar aims or place emphasis on the same senses such as the radio and telephone. As much of McLuhan's work is not particularly recent it also does not include or take into consideration many recent updates in technology.Examples of this would be the improvement of televisions with high definition capabilities and video calling technology availability commonly on smart phones and therefore it can in many cases be discarded as a flawed method of gauging media. Connor Zahariev (discuss • contribs) 21:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah that's really good. So will you put that under my section on light on/light through or before it? Feel free to move it around. Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 21:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys I have put a link in between the hot and cool media section and its criticisms, if you need to figure out how to do links you can use that as an example. I learnt how to do it by looking at another groups Connor Zahariev (discuss • contribs) 21:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Been really struggling for content for the origin/culture section. There hardly seems to be anything really on the history. Still ploughing along but if anyone sees or comes across any good links just let me know and I can work away. ElliotNotEthan (discuss • contribs) 00:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys, just seeing our glossary could do with being bolstered, I'll get working on adding to that now if that's okay? (TallNorthernIrishEthan (discuss • contribs) 00:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC))

And cheers for that Connor, I was trying to work out how to do that myself and haven't heard back from the people of the 'Reading Room'. I'll look into that! (TallNorthernIrishEthan (discuss • contribs) 00:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC))

I'll help you contribute to that glossary aswell now Ethan. My topic seems very short (the actual tech determinism wiki only has one sentence on origins!) so I'll dedicate a bit of time to that now. Will also have a read through the entire piece and ensure there's no recognisable crossovers etc. ElliotNotEthan (discuss • contribs) 00:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem Elliot, sounds good. I'm starting with adding the terms 'technological innovation', 'hot and cold media' and 'online identity'. But yeah that sounds good with the crossovers etc., remember to write anything that you see as crossing over on this before you change it so we know (and so you can be accredited). (TallNorthernIrishEthan (discuss • contribs) 01:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC))

I'm found a few really good links that we can use for further criticism of McLuhan if anyone wants to have a look.

http://assett.colorado.edu/jackson/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Technological-Determinism-and-Discursive-Closure-in-Organizational-Mergers.pdf http://communicationista.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/technological-determinism-vs-social-construction-of-technology/ http://blogs.ubc.ca/etec540sept12/2012/09/30/is-determinism-too-determined/ http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12610636/index.pdf http://twelve.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-084-who%E2%80%99s-afraid-of-technological-determinism-another-look-at-medium-theory/

I was wondering whether you guys think we've got enough for our criticism's bit or whether you wouldn't mind if I added some more to it with these links? There's some really useful articles in there with critical debate throughout! (TallNorthernIrishEthan (discuss • contribs) 01:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC))

Can anyone help me with how to make a sub-heading on the wiki page?! I did it before but have completely forgotten how... ElliotNotEthan (discuss • contribs) 01:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Elliot, just found this link http://uk.ign.com/wikis/how-to/Format_and_Presentation That's how you add a sub heading, for example "=== SUB HEADING ==="

Hope this helps. (TallNorthernIrishEthan (discuss • contribs) 01:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC))

Cheers buddy, just gone to edit and worked it out straight away! No surprise you are up late at this time too. Been a mad week with those two essays and now this. Cracking on now though I've put a Non-Marxist section in afterwards and I'm just gonna write a little additional stuff now. ElliotNotEthan (discuss • contribs) 01:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think what would be really useful for us is to hyperlink specific things back to their original wiki pages. I'm gonna go through the page and do this where appropriate. Let me know if you think there's any problems with that. ElliotNotEthan (discuss • contribs) 01:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries, happy to help, it's tough getting to grips with this! Okay that sounds like a good idea, I'll have a watch over what you're doing and maybe do the same myself. Well done, keep it up! I'm just doing some reading so I'm going to add to the page now, did a bit of reading of "Giddings, Seth and Lister, Martin (eds.) (2011) The New Media and Technocultures Reader. London: Routledge", it's in the recommended reading and was of great help, have a read for a few ideas if you want. Good luck! (TallNorthernIrishEthan (discuss • contribs) 01:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC))

I'll try and add a bit more to my section tomorrow. Have spent a bit of time hyperlinking every theorist that has been mentioned (the first time they have been mentioned in the wiki) as I think it is useful and you see it a lot on wiki. Also are we right to reference throughout the editing yeah? Thought that might just be left for the end. ElliotNotEthan (discuss • contribs) 03:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Well done for doing that, sounds like a good idea. And yes I have done that anyway, I think it's quite important that this is done through the piece! (TallNorthernIrishEthan (discuss • contribs) 03:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC))

Hi guys, I've just added to the glossary, I added definitions to hot media, cold media and technological innovation. I also placed the glossary in alphabetical order, I did this as a starting point for the glossary as it might be more appropriate and polished looking, so if you could continue in the same way that'd be great! (TallNorthernIrishEthan (discuss • contribs) 03:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC))

Hi guys, I just added the sub heading "Problems with McLuhan's "the medium is in the message" and information on this, in the criticisms bit. I found an interesting piece on it! I also added another paragraph which questions whether determinism is too determined based on the scholar Ong (1989) as I thought it was interesting, this can also be found in the criticism's bit. I hope it's okay? Feel free to edit this if you deem it necessary, also, Ong (1989) was added to the reference list inkeeping with the alphabetical order. (TallNorthernIrishEthan (discuss • contribs) 04:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC))

Hey guys, great work! It's finally coming together, I noticed online identity has a link but it's in red, does anyone know how to sort that? If not I shall go to reading room AnnieMCook (discuss • contribs) 09:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Great work guys. Love the added links to the theorists' main Wikipedia pages. Yes Annie, the reading room told me how to do that yesterday so have just fixed it now. I was planning on adding a section to online identity today if that's ok? Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 10:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Sophie, yeah go ahead! AnnieMCook (discuss • contribs) 10:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok I've just posted this bit up on Ray Kurweil in notable determinists although I shall try to add a bit more about him.

Ray Kurzweil, a futurist specified in speech recognition technology and the future of technology such as robotics and biotechnology is notable as a technological determinist with his assessment of the history of technology and its rate of progress.

Kurzweil assumes that the rate of progress of technology is at such a high speed that technological intelligence will surpass human intelligence within a few decades (Kurzweil, 382). He argues that although the future holds technological change so fast human nature will take longer to adapt to changes and the rapid pace of innovation.

AnnieMCook (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That's brilliant, we were needing another section for notable determinists. Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 12:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I was thinking, how are you getting on with online-identity? Do you need help at all? AnnieMCook (discuss • contribs) 13:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I think our page is starting to look really good now. Getting on fine thanks. Not really, just writing up a section on it which will hopefully fit in nicely with always on. Don't have any sources for it though, do you think that's ok? Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 13:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok no bother! Yeh I don't think sources are too necessary because we've linked to the other groups page (which is packed full of content) I've added a bit more to Kurzweil and added an external link to Moore's Law, is it ok to link to wikipedia? Noticed someone else had linked to it on Non-Marxist theories. AnnieMCook (discuss • contribs) 13:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Great, pretty much finished it now so will just get it on the main page. Yeah I think that's fine to link to Wikipedia, looks good when it comes to theorists' pages etc. so go ahead. Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I've added a few things to the glossary aswell including 'the medium is the message' 'non Marxist' and 'social media. Obviously the latter is self explanatary but I thought it was important to explicitly define the first two as they'll help with the overall understanding of the piece. I wouldn't have fully understood what a non Marxist was on without it! (TallNorthernIrishEthan (discuss • contribs) 15:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC))

Editing
Hey guys I'm just starting to go through now and edit a bit - grammatical stuff and what not. I'm fleshing things out a bit if it needs it but it looks really good! AlexaSoccer (discuss • contribs) 13:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It all looks pretty good to me - are there any more areas yall think we need to work on? AlexaSoccer (discuss • contribs) 14:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant! I've just got a little section I'm about to put up on online identity but other than that, think all the sections are done. Just need read over really. Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to try and add another few things to the glossary to beef it out further as it's one of the few things we can really add to at this stage, hope that's okay! I'll have another read through it and see if anymore edits need to be made aswell. (TallNorthernIrishEthan (discuss • contribs) 14:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC))

Yeah that's great. Saw you had put a bit up on online identity Alexa so have just added my section into what you had. Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Just remember to press the minor edits button for those kind of things (spelling mistakes etc) Connor Zahariev (discuss • contribs) 15:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just edged out a few things on the page there, does a minor edits button come up each time you edit the page? (TallNorthernIrishEthan (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC))

Yeah its a little tick box at the bottom, also guys you might want to add yourselves to the contributors section on the home page do this by using only 3 tildes (~)  Connor Zahariev (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I've just added myself to the main users page too. Sophie Michele Addison (discuss • contribs) 15:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)