User talk:Thedellboy

This is my Wikibooks user discussion page. I will be exploring Wikibooks and registering my experiences on this page. Please feel free to discuss any ideas you have with me and help me explore the Wikibooks project. Thedellboy (discuss • contribs) 14:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Assignment #1 Educational Assignment
One of my favourite hobbies is surfing the internet in the search of the best and most absurd parodies and subversions of the bizarre human being that is Donald Trump. Political satire, in my opinion, is an incredibly powerful human tool and currently I don't believe there is a single man on the planet who offers himself up so readily and mercilessly to savage internet roasting than Mr. Trump. I was first made aware of this wonderful trend through the wonderfully accurate but hilarious videos by Russell Brand in his 'trew' news series.

Perhaps my favourite of these videos regarding Trump is his video titled Donald Trump Is a Joke - Period. One joke that is particuarly belly-tickling is his mini skit of some 'stereotypical Mexicans' plotting against America by sending over, as Trump as titled them, 'the bad ones'. Brand's construction of Trump as a sort of mad child-man with absurd ideas is brilliant, and the last killer line - "this is the world he lives in" hits home a hard hitting truth that is both funny and worrying at the same time.

Brand's Trump critique doesn't end here either, infact he has several videos in his Trew News series dedicated solely to the would-be President. Of course, wider satirical discourse regarding Trump isn't just restricted to one UK comedian, but to the wider world of the internet, where mash-ups, edits, parodies and songs exist to undermine him.

A recent example that also fits in perfectly with recent pop culture is the Donald Trump Interrupts video which has intelligently edited Donald into Star Wars, with perfect comic timing. I would say this video is metonymical of the broader world of the Trump parody.

Of course, there is the worry that too much critique of Trump could only strengthen his cause, by widening his general exposure to the populace and rallying voters to his troubling cause. However, my personal opinion is that these videos use comedy make people who might be otherwise be unaware of the ludicrous nature of Donald Trump's political ideals a lot more informed. And these videos, once set into a larger context, reveal what a dangerous and absurd man Trump is and will hopefully repel any would be voters from making what many agree, would be a global disaster.

Trump for President? No. Trump for funny Youtube Videos? Yes.

Thedellboy (discuss • contribs) 15:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Found this really interesting, really scary though how someone like Trump is doing so well in the elections. It's interesting to see Brand's commentary on the businessmen turned politician, really recommend looking into other comedic/satirical news presenters like Trevor Noah and John Oliver if you want to see some views of presenters currently living in America. Even check out some of John Stewarts old content from before he left the Daily Show. GlasgowTexan (discuss • contribs) 15:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, this is a very interesting hobby. I myself am a huge fan of political satire and for instance watch the German version of the Daily Show over and over again. Yes, it is worrysome, that Trump is someone, that provokes so much (and I am sure, he does this on purpose) so that people talk about him all over the world. I sometimes am afraid, too, that making fun of a certain party oder a certain politician actually is free advertisement for those. But on the other hand it is necessary, that someone says anything against it - but people nowadays are so easily offended, that the only way to do this effectively is by adding some humor to it. And sometimes (as you said) people like Trump just make a fool out of themselves... Finally I just leave a little pun for you here Why not Trump Donald? - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 16:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Thedellboy, Good thoughts guys! Plus that interrupting Trump was hilarious. This is a really funny and interesting article. It really makes you think about the effects that satire can have on the politics. On one hand the makers of the videos and memes might be mocking Trump, however with so much streaming online, he is only reaching more people. There is discussions, I believe, on the average American's voting as to who they will think of when they get into the voting box. One side might argue that because he's so viral right now they may be more inclined to vote for him, as they have heard the most. This of course would be assuming that the audience is passive, which there is strong evidence against, in saying that, some grain of truth may still remain, other wise there would be no discussion at all. On the other hand you could also note the counter-hype on say, Bernie Sanders. Many people have created pretty much the same amount of production online for Bernie Sanders but in a positive light. Either way, whether there is bias-ism there or not, the videos and memes are engaging people and encouraging them to learn more. GlasgowTexan, you had an interesting point on Russel Brand. He's a comedian who turned his popularity to reach masses of people on political standpoints. Just makes an interesting discussion on what sort of doors comedy opens. With most comedy today there is usually some sort of reference to whats been going on in the culture of the country, why shouldn't politics be included in that too, I suppose. PurpleHan (discuss • contribs) 20:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I can only add to my previous commenters: it's scary how funny it is. I personally think that satire is a great tool, and I, too, subscribe to various sites online, one of which is the German version of the Onion - Der Postillon. A lot of times, the appeal of satire is with its accuracy - as is the case with Donald Trump. More so when people mistakenly take satire at face value and ridicule themselves online. A collection of examples is this one (I apologise, it's only in German). Nonetheless, the hype around Donald Trump does make me anxious. As you said you subscribe to Russell Brand's trews, you've probably seen the episode in which he explains what was the factor for success for all previous election candidates in the United States? It was their wealth. I'm quite scared myself that a person like Donald Trump has a genuine chance of becoming the U.S. president. If anything, he has got a lot of media attention and more followers (and haters) than he ever had... -- Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 21:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
Your response to the exercise identifies an interesting part of contemporary Internet culture and offers a range of examples. This could be strengthened by reference to themes from the module. There are problems with your wiki markup as you have used the template for linking to Wikipedia articles from within Wikipedia which does not work in Wikibooks. It would be worth tempering your language with regards to Trump at times. Remember while this is an online space, you still need a tone appropriate of an academic assignment. Your comments engage with colleagues' posts but would also benefit from a greater critical engagement and reference to topics covered in the lectures and reading.

A post of this standard roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor: Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory entries may try to relate an idea from the module to an original example, but might not be very convincing. They may waste space on synopsis or description, rather than making a point. They may have spelling or grammatical errors and typos. They might not demonstrate more than a single quick pass at the assignment, informed only by lecture and/or cursory reading. They may suggest reading but not thinking (or indeed the reverse). The wiki markup formatting will need some work. Sprowberry (discuss • contribs) 10:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Assignment #2 Visibility and Online Footprint - Educational Assignment
Unless someone has completely avoided the internet entirely, it is nearly impossible to say that you don't have some sort of form of online identity. In fact, I would argue that the majority of us have a considerable online footprint, espescially young people like myself who use a high number of Social Media Platforms.

To check my online visibility on one platform, I can use Facebook's "View As" Tool on my own profile so I can see how much information my profile is offering to the world. Many users of Facebook haven't tweaked their privacy settings, so nearly all of the information they post on Facebook is available for absolutely anyone to see. I have changed much of the privacy settings, so I have less information available than the average user, however, some key information is still out there. The only pictures others can view are my cover photos and my latest profile picture, which is a (comparitvely) low photo footprint, as usually a large number of photos are on display on other profiles. However, my complete friendslist is available to be viewed. This reveals a lot about me socially, and is also an interesting insight into other people's online footprint, as their profiles can be found via my own, and vice versa.

Generally most forms of my online visibility are through social media. For example, I am connected and visible on Facebook, Twitter, Skype, YouTube, Snapchat, Instagram, Spotify, Tinder, Steam and Wikipedia(!). It is interesting to note that often we are more visible than we may realise, even on some of the more "lowkey" social medias. For example, Spotify, which for some time I wouldn't have even considered a form of social media. However, my friend informed me one day of what I'd been listening to, as he had "followed me", and I was completely unaware of this! I think it is a fair point to say that most people are not concious of just how visible they are online.

However, online identity is not just restricted to social media. You must remember to include any account you have ever made online. For some of us, this will be in the hundreds! Our footprint will be massive, as hundreds of company will hold valuable and personal data on us. Some common examples might include Amazon, Gmail, Digital Banking and even our University Accounts. Our privacy can be breached by hackers, making our online footprint something potentially dangerous. One major example is Steam, who were hacked in November.

Thedellboy (discuss • contribs) 16:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I found it interesting that you brought online banking and University accounts into your argument at the end considering that these services are required for us to function day to day. It has gotten to the point where we, as students, no longer have control of our online footprint due to services like the Portal, Succeed and Turnitin. Our work is submitted to the internet even if we do not want it to be. This project itself its self is a testament to University professors forcing students to create an online footprint, if a student did not want to have said footprint then they would be penalized with a failing grade. Even the industry that we are looking to go into in general consists of other people putting our information online from IMDB profiles to Wikipedia articles. It's scary that we are losing control of our whole private life due to the internet and that it is at the level of being a student that we both learn about what an online footprint and forced to create a bigger one. GlasgowTexan (discuss • contribs) 14:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Assignment #3 Information Overload! (Educational Assignment)
One example of a social media platform that has suffered from Information Overload is Facebook. Over the years, Facebook has increased its level of engagement, with likes, tags, shares and comments. Any use of these functions will send the interaction across the feeds of their friends. With many users considerably active on Facebook and a growing number of people on my friends list, this can result in a staggering number of information being sent onto my feed. Perhaps the problem here is most of this information is not what I would be interested in seeing.

Posts "by" my friends I would consider desired information. However, this means I have also subscribed to all of their interactions, which could be about their interests but not mine. If you consider how many interactions the average person on Facebook makes, this makes a massive total. Some might say that this might not be a problem, but many modern users of social media suffer from FOMO or Fear of Missing Out. This means that many users have a semi-irrational need to battle against this information overload.

At one time I was suffering with the huge amount of information being sent to my Timeline, so I decided to trim down on the number of likes I have and number of friends I keep. This has helped considerbaly, and is a crucial part of the way I manage my social media use. Preventing information overload is an important part of nearly every users use of digital media. Overload has taken place due to the relative ease of uploading information online, and the ability to sometimes do this subconciously. Meikle and Young (2012) touch on this issue, "You might do something that is not really intended for public distribution, only to find Facebook has told everyone you know" (p.73). For example, Facebook can be linked to other forms of media, like Netflix, and automatically provide updates on what that person is watching. If this user watches Netflix regularly, then there is an arguable overload of data being sent across Facebook feeds, which often the user may unaware of!

However, what I have described here has shown that the onus is on me, the user, to decrease the amount of information being sent to me. There is so much information out there online ready to be consumed, that the responsibiity is actually placed on the user to prevent information being sent to them. Perhaps the internet is one of the very few medias, if not the only, where this sort of responsibility and relationship between media consumer and creator exists. Moreover, this is only the case for one of many platforms available on online, and this proccess is sometimes repeated, varied, or both on other platforms. The retweet function on Twitter is another basic comparable function, whereby information from outside the user's chosen subsriptions is sent to them.

Finally, it is important to consider why these decisions are made in combatting overload. FOMO has of course been mentioned, but is not applicable to every user. If the online space can be read as a tool for seeking out information, then I need to reduce the amount of unnecessary data being sent my way to increase my own productivity. This of course depends on how a user wishes to use their own media. For me, Facebook is mostly social and often an escape, so I am less strict with my management of data. Others may use Facebook strictly for seeking out news, or for business, so which information they view as overload may change. Thus, a generalised statement about Information Overload's effect on users cannot be made without looking at personal context.

Thedellboy (discuss • contribs) 15:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

You've touched on some points here that I can strongly relate with. Sure, Facebook is a great tool for communicating with friends, family, acquaintances etc. but there is definitely some information out there that we wish was only visible to certain people on our friends list, e.g tags and interactions. I have been a recent victim of this, as my embarrassing uncle insists on 'liking' or 'commenting' on things that I have liked or commented on or have been tagged in in some way.These are usually things that have absolutely nothing to do with me, never mind him! So now i'm always very wary of the things I like, just in case its a drunken picture of a friend on a night out and he feels the need to comment. The problem is not the amount of information there is available online, I don't think. The problem is how easy all of this information spreads or how easy it is to access. To add to my point, I often think about how facebook comes accross to new users, i.e. my embarrassing uncle. Users like yourself, me and our fellow classmates have been using Facebook pretty much from the beginning, so we have been programmed into just naturally knowing when to engage and when not to engage with the information on our timelines, whereas new users may not recognise the barriers which just should not be crossed, and they just comment or like anything that comes their way, regardless of who has posted it. Its like over the years we have created a set of unofficial etiquete rules that everybody just unconsciously knows. So, I guess what i'm tying to say is with all of the uncontrollable information floating around the internet, it must be a pretty daunting and confusing place for those who are new to the whole digital living experience. I'm just glad that it's so normal for our generation and that we all just 'get it'. 14buchananL (discuss • contribs) 23:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you think Facebook should do more in order to streamline people's timelines or do you think it is a deliberate attempt to keep people looking at they're profile to make sure they are not missing out? ItsMartholomew (discuss • contribs) 03:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

As one of the other comments mentioned, Facebook is a platform for the user, so I would suggest that Facebook does not need to do too much more in the way of timeline streamling. There are a various number of actions a user can take to limit data flow. In fact, recently Facebook allowed us to choose what information we want to see at the top of our timeline So perhaps Facebook has already helped the user in that sense. This article might help explain this new proccess a bit better

TThis is really interesting and you've made a good argument about the responsibility that is placed on the user. Facebook is merely a platform for the users and how they want to use Facebook is up to them. I know lots of people how have cut down on their news feed content by, 'cleansing'. But then you could ask are they going to feel like they will 'miss out' on the other users news? Which is where users need to decide who they care most about seeing. The same goes in Tumblr where there is so much information and information the users make themselves. When creating Tumblr the users choose what type of information they receive and in that sense have more control over their news feed because they are subscribing to things they are actually interested in and wanting to engage in. Whereas Facebook is filled with stuff from adverts and 'friends' but the user has much less control in what they will see, as the main content depends on what your 'friends' are posting. I say friends with the quotes because there isn't always an actually connection to those you have on Facebook. Most users just add people they met once, or distant relatives without actually being interested in what they are posting but interested in maintaining a social media connection with them. PurpleHan (discuss • contribs) 11:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Assignment #4 Reflective [Educational Assignment]
For the Wiki book exercise, we were tasked with contributing to a larger Wiki book on Surveillance and Sousveillance. Five Groups were involved in writing extensively on this subject collaboratively. As there were several groups, we had to decide amongst ourselves how best to tackle the project. The biggest challenge in these sort of collective projects is making a decision regarding to who works on which section. As it would be impractical for around thirty people to meet up, the entirety of this discussion had to take place within the Wiki Book platform.

This both presented strengths and weaknesses. By doing this online, it eliminated much of the practical difficulties in organising such a large project. It also meant we could easily create a table outlining which users were working on which areas. However, with so many people off working "individually" within this group context, it proved difficult to maintain an established 'flow' of the book in a sensible order, and overlap was a constant issue.

Secondly, for these collaborative projects to be a success, constant communication and transparency is key, and unfortunately not all members adhered to this. I noticed in the discussion pages this often resulted in some users both working on the same section, resulting in wasted time and a falling out later when users realised the time they'd spent researching was wasted as it had already been completed by someone else.

Another interesting process was how face-to-face discussions did not take place in my particular group. I believe due to Wiki Book's online nature, many groups did not see face-to-face discussions as necessary. However, this does not mean that they would not have helped. Meeting in person would have eliminated some of the issues discussed above, and how would have allowed to us to communicate in a level that isn't quite the same online.

Perhaps this would have improved the peer-review process also. There was a noticeable trend whereby users wrote their own pieces and provided very little feedback on those that they were not involved with. If every group had met up in person and had their work quickly peer-reviewed by the rest of their members, this would have increased the quality of the wiki book dramatically. This is a great example of both the pitfalls and the merits of an online collaborative project. The best answer is most likely a mix of online and in person discussion.

The result meant that I felt obliged to work my way through the Wiki Book as an editor and make sure there was no spelling and syntax errors, no overlap of pieces and that everything was formatted in the right way and ordered correctly. With the size of the project, this was difficult and I am unsure of how many other users were editing. This project is a great example of 'Collective Intelligence' and I think for the most part the Wiki Book shows the successes of this notion.

However, it also shows that to be completely successful as a media tool, it requires certain presets. I think several established "editors" or "admins" for each page would have helped significantly in preventing what I described above and would ensure a streamlined project. As mentioned before, a mixture of online and in person discussion would have also helped make the collaborative process more efficient.

Thedellboy (discuss • contribs) 12:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It was really interesting to read about the process of editing, as for my particular chapter group it didn't seem to be mentioned at all. That's actually a really good way to get more engaged in the other users work. This would have helped in the cases of what you mentioned, the 'individual' work. It really brings to mind the creative aspects of the collective intelligence, as, if the collective intelligence is meant for creating a space of creativity, where would editing lie in that? But as you have mentioned, it was really needed. I agree with your idea of admins as well. For, though the creativity is key, so the 'moderating' and 'smoothing' things out is as equally important. Really interesting things to think about in the case of approaching these types of projects. PurpleHan (discuss • contribs) 20:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
You demonstrate an understanding of the importance of completing the assignment on Wikibooks and display some competence with wiki markup. There's evidence of sustained contributions and you played a role in ensuring consistency through page. Your contributions feature a level of analysis of module topics in exercises, which should be supplemented through referenced to the literature. Your understanding is demonstrated primarily with reference to journalism rather than scholarly reading, which I would encourage you to integrate more in future assignments.

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives a satisfactory brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a fair range of concepts associated with your subject, and an effort to deliver critical definitions. There is evidence that you draw from relevant literature and scholarship, however your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is slightly lost, perhaps due to a variable depth of understanding the subject matter or over reliance on rote learning. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a somewhat circumscribed range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of limited critical engagement with set material, although most ideas and procedures insecurely grasped
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material limited, displaying a qualified familiarity with a minimally sufficient range of relevant materials
 * Argument and analysis:
 * poorly articulated and supported argument;
 * lack of evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * lack of evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections in discussion);
 * evidence of independent critical ability limited, due to the fact that your grasp of the analytical issues and concepts, although generally reasonable, is somewhat insecure.

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content to a variable standard (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Satisfactory engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Reflexive, creative and fairly well-managed use of discussion pages using deployment of somewhat limited judgement relating to key issues, concepts or procedures

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)