User talk:Toriettaaw

This is my wiki books discussion page. These services will be used for a university project. Toriettaaw (discuss • contribs) 14:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1 Educational project
This article is part of my university project. The death of two (nowadays to be called fathers of gangster rap): Biggie Smalls and Tupac Shakur, has forever changed Hip Hop and its culture. Hip Hop is not a style it is a movement. Its origins come from New York City, around late 1970’s and early 1980’s. The movement feature four categories: Mcing(best known as rapping), Dling, street art (graffiti) and b-boying (breakdancing). The original Hip Hop as music consists of a DJ scratching a record to create a looped beat while an MC(artist) would rap along. Hip Hop has definitely evolved ever since, in many innovative directions. However rapping to a looping beat is still the foundation of many Hip Hop songs. As the time passed Hip Hop progressed. It is impossible not to mention Afrika Bambaataa, an American DJ, that has released new electro tracks in the 1980’s, that have altered the genre of Hip Hop. By using synthesizers and drum machines, the created an entirely new experience to the music tracks. Few artists that defined the genre and left a footprint in the history of Hip Hop are Run DMC, LL Cool J, Tribe Called Quest, De La Soul and many more. Moving seven years ahead, Compton became to gain major attention. The fist wave of Compton Hip Hop was politically a socially motivated, that drastically changed to a wave of gangster rap. One of the biggest influences was a scandalous band N.W.A. The band produced by Dr.Dre gained a lot of attention from the public by being rather controversial. Their lyrics featured police brutality, drug dealing and racism. The group disbanded after a series of unfortunate events, however in will always stay as one of the most influential band in the history of Hip Hop. Right after an upcoming rapper 2pac Shakur would sign with Suge Knights Death Row Records – introducing the era of The West coast gangster rap. Meanwhile, on the other coast, the same movement was growing. Biggie Smalls was signing to Upton records. The tensions between two coasts started to rise after Biggie dropped a track called “who shot ya” which 2Pac took as a diss song mocking his shooting. The music battle began to go back and forth between the coasts. Media had a big coverage on the tensions between the coasts, fans and the artists. The rivalries continued for six years, until the tragic events that have been taken with a space of six months. Both Biggie and 2Pac were assassinated. Their death lead to a drastic change in the movement, putting the end to the Golden age of Hip Hop.

Comments
All feedback is welcome. Toriettaaw (discuss • contribs) 22:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I found it interesting to rad about your words. Thanks for giving clear, detailed information on hip hop culture though i was originally knowing nothing about it. I thought to many ppl including me, hip hop doesn't seem to be stem to that many cultures including dance and songs. Thx for introduction! Chuyanlol (discuss • contribs) 18:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
You offer a broad introduction to hip hop but do not offer a reflection on why this is interesting. Remember that academic works needs not only to identify a topic of interest, but also offer some analysis of this. Your work would also benefit from a greater structure: paragraphs can greatly help, but also thinking through how one section leads to another is instructive. As your writing currently stands, it's not entirely clear what the focus is on. You would also benefit from using a greater range of wiki markup and embedding links within your writing rather than leaving them right to the end. Your comments demonstrate engagement with colleagues, but this would also benefit from a level of critical engagement.

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) 10:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Online Footprint.
The Web is no longer a place just for downloading pictures for desktop wallpapers. It is a place where we share information, make profiles and connect with “people”. After an outbreak in late 90’s, Social Networking Sites have started to gain popularity within the Web community. With time SNS’s have branched out, providing different features for sharing and connecting. SNS’s that I use most frequently would be: A platform where you can share your basic personal details, share photographs and videos, communicate with people through messenger by text or video chat. A platform where you can have a basic personal BIO, upload photos or short videos. A platform that works in the same ways as Facebook (often called “Russian Facebook” ). However, it provides a wider range of tools, such as watching films and listening to music.
 * 1) 	Facebook
 * 1) 	Instagram
 * 1) 	VK.com

Every platform listed above uses the information we share to leave a footprint of our identity. Every picture we upload, every comment we make and every post we share are all features that construct our online identity. As a well-known fact, it is impossible to get a true representation of us through the SNS’s, meaning that there is space for manipulations. Agreeing with Andrew L. Mendelson and Zizzi Papacharissi, “Networked presentation of the self, involves performance elements, using a variety of tools and strategies to present taste, likes, dislike, affiliations, and in general, personality.” A big concern with the online presence of people is how accurate their representation is. Living in Scotland I have realized that my online presence and identity on international SNS’s such as Facebook and Instagram is different to very region specific sites such as VK.com.

Facebook and Instagram
These are platforms that I use to share events of my everyday. On an everyday basis, I get tagged in pictures showing the realness of the outside world I live in. Going through my profile there will be albums with photographs of events hat have happened since I started uploading photographs. Strangers that have been tagged in same photos as me, now know about my existence. Meaning that with every small piece of information that is shared by me or about me by someone, I leave a permanent footprint allowing people of a wider range to connect with me.

VK.com
Taking into consideration the tools provided for sharing and connecting on this platform. My identity on this SNS is very different to Facebook or Instagram. It is impossible for me to be tagged in the same photos as the people I connect with on this SNS due to location difference. Meaning that my online presence is very limited and the footprint I leave is smaller. It almost becomes a platform of nostalgia, where the representation of my identity in never generated, but the information of the past can be brought up to the surface to create a space for interacting.

Comments:
Toriettaaw (discuss • contribs) 11:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Great posts. I found the part on Vk.com really interesting. What sort of personal information can people get to know about you on that platform? It looks like you've got a bigger control on everything than on Facebook. Can people who are not your friends see your profile? Is there anything that you think vk.com is better at than Facebook? --Evp09 (discuss • contribs) 10:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC) The profile on VK.com is the same basic information as you would provide on Facebook. In terms of control. I would say that VK.com provides less. The privacy setting are much more limited in comparison to Facebook, and the same applies to sharing posts. There are certain setting that allow privacy which would mean that yes, if I decide not to have strangers seeing my profile. I find that VK.com platform provides more option and makes he whole experience of using it more enjoyable. Feature that I enjoy the most are video channels and music channels. Toriettaaw (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC) I find your concluding remarks about VK.com interesting. With the coming and going of different social networks over the years – such as Myspace or Bebo - many people will now have ‘dormant’ profiles that were actively updated and interacted with at the time, but now lie as a relic of their past identity. So are these less ‘real’ expressions of identity than your current Facebook profile? As well as being a place to find cringy photos and posts from your past self, these websites can also be a way of mapping your online footprint and how it has changed over the years as you yourself has also changed.

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 10:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC) I find that my VK.com identity is still real, however very limited. I am mostly active on Facebook, meaning that people that are part of my constantly changing Facebook identity, learn about me through the information I or other provide about me. Which comes in a constant flow. When it comes to VK.com, its still active but not for networking purposes but mostly for film viewing and music. My profile picture and basic information is up to date but apart from that people who view my profile would not know any more about me. Toriettaaw (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm gonna follow the previous commentators path. VK sounds different and like nothing I have experienced. Is it preferable to Facebook? And why do you think this platform still stand in Russian when most other platforms have died out in other countries? QueenElsaIngrid (discuss • contribs) 10:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Since I use the platforms in very different ways and with very specific purposes it is almost impossible to pick one. I find that VK.com give me more features as a platform to enjoy my time using it. However I find that Facebook has more features that make it easier to connect with people, such as tagging. In regards to why this platform still hasn't died out, I think the location needs to be taken into consideration. VK.com is mostly Russian speaking platform, meaning that apart from Russia, countries such as Latvia, White Russia and many others are involved. Since the reach is so wide and the language is convenient the platform still remains very active and alive. Toriettaaw (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC) You mention the difference in the online persona you put forth on sites like Facebook and Instagram from more regional sites like VK, so my question is how do you think someone who only knows you through one would react if they saw you through the other? Is there such a huge difference that it would be like two different people or are there more subtle but noticeable differences? MoreThanMax (discuss • contribs) 11:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3 Information Overload
Toriettaaw (discuss • contribs) 10:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Considering the amount of information available back in 2000's The Web has definitely become cluttered with content. In the time of digital age, it people spend hours and hours creating content which they then share on the Web. The content in itself is always diverse, tackling different interests of the users.

If we look at the launch of Youtube back in 2005, It popularity and success have risen very fast. With new contents uploaded every hour at this point in time, Youtube has 800 million unique users added every month. According to the statistics only two years ago 300 hours worth of content was being uploaded every minute. With such rapid popularity, Youtube services have decided to sponsor the most successful channels. By signing a contract with youtube, the users will be agreeing to provide a certain amount of content per week. For a while, Youtube was a place where you can watch funny montages of cats or celebrity fails. But the moment content producers started using the platform as an SNS, it had changed in a different direction. The notion of sensationalism and fame was always part of Youtube sharing. YouTubers these days come up with the most catchy and controversial titles for the content they produce, which usually carries no serious value. A lot of the time videos as such are made for entertainment purposes. I might agree that first video about "What is in my bad" was probably found interesting by someone. But unfortunately, original content is not produced very often. Users have found content that is popular with the consumers and use it as a tool to produce more and more of the same stuff. At the moment, Youtube is flooded with makeup tutorials, cheap celebrity gossip and gaming videos.

Why are these type of videos so popular? These videos are usually short and fast paced. They usually do not tend to consist of complex information that would require additional research. Making them a great follow up to trash TV. There is no harm in these type of videos, however, they tend to clog Youtube feeds making it harder for any different content creator to stand a chance in having their content being seen.

Comments
I love this post, it's a fact that YouTube has become more and more popular throughout the years and kinda replaced TV in a sense. The importance of YouTube is that I can look for whatever I'm interested in and I can just skip the parts I don't care about on the contrary to for example traditional TV. I don't have American channels at home for instance, but I like watching celebrities playing stupid games with Jimmy Fallon. Is it cheap? Definitely. But I think everyone loves seeing famous people acting like themselves. I enjoy that I don't have to miss the latest guests on Conan or Kimmel, just because I live in the UK. With YouTube channels everything has become more approachable, if I wanted to I could look for videos of cats playing piano. This freedom is the best part of not just YouTube but the internet itself. --Evp09 (discuss • contribs) 22:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the fact being a YouTuber is an actual job these days just shows how much time people do spend watching these videos. At the same time we are the ones supporting these people. If we didn't watch these videos and spent more time watching meaningful content then maybe there would be less useless content than there is. In a way people watching videos are influencing what becomes big and what doesn't. More often these seem to be silly or pointless and less productive for the viewer yet we still engage with these types of videos more than something more meaningful. Does this not say more about the viewers than the Youtubers since we influence their fame effectively? Eilidh no.1 (discuss • contribs) 23:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Also how is your page so good? How do you get a contents and lay it out so well? I don't understand any of this at all? Eilidh no.1 (discuss • contribs) 23:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiikibook Project
As far back in time as we go people have always worked together to create a better place for all of us to live. With the coming of the Web, at first, it was a time of passive consumption of information according to Clay Shirky. However Alvin Toffler has predicted a brighter future for the Web and that it would be changed from passive consumption to a place where people can create and actively produce content. Meaning that now we can once again work together in the collaborative process. This all relates to a collaborative project I have participated as part of my Digital Media module in the University of Stirling. The assignment for this module was to collaboratively create a book the placement of which would be on Wikibooks platform. At first, the assignment seemed overwhelming. In his book, Levi Pierre states, “no one knows everything, but everyone knows something”. Solely based on that idea collaboration on a project such as Wikibooks could seem to have a quiet positive impact in students learning. Especially taking into consideration that hundred and twenty-one people were collaborating together. On the very positive side, we have been split into teams that narrowed down and made the process easier. Since Wikipedia is eleventh on the top list of tools used by professional to contribute to learning, participating in this exercise seemed to have a real impact and contribution to the society in comparison to an essay for example. The assignment fit really well with David Gauntlett’s argument that actions of several people have more impact than the actions of an individual. He also argues that considering the time we spent on just consuming information we could just as easily spend it on civic collaborations through which we can have an impact on the society. Working together on the Wikibook brought a lot of different ideas together and the constant editing of content until we came to a satisfying for everyone conclusion was very helpful in a way that we all got to learn as a team. The downside could be seen as, the lack of face-to-face communication while working on this assignment. However coming back to Alvin Toffler and his ideas on defining participation he says “where members believe that their contributions matter and where members feel some degree of social connection with one another”. I agree with his statement, although we were participating online because of other people who were contributing and using talk pages for discussions to evaluate each other’s opinions there was a great sense of participation. It was obvious that some contributors would participate more than others but the Wikibook provided space for everyone to engage at any level they wanted and at any given time. Another aspect of the assignment structure that was very useful was the assigned group structure. This gave an opportunity to meet face to face and create a plan from which we then have a start point from. In conclusion, I would like to say that participating in such collaborative projects really enhances knowledge. As Jane Heart says “social media can only help to support and enhance learning but the presence on social media does not necessarily mean social learning will take place”. The project not only about being present on Wikibooks but also strict deadlines pushed you to really engage and participate and collaborative learning.

Comments
Toriettaaw (discuss • contribs) 10:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading your post, it was very informative. I hadn't realised that the Wikibooks system was so highly used by professionals. That just goes to show how useful a tool it has grown to be. I agree that this project would not have tuned out as successful as it did if we hadn't had such a large number of contributors working together on it. There were a lot of cases where people would 'edit' or 'correct' each others work which helped to build a friendly environment amongst users.There were times when communication was hard though, like you mentioned. I feel that Wikibooks, due to having so many users working on the same page, became extremely crowded, and it was easy to lose your place in a conversation. With the page growing and changing every day leading up to the deadline, it was often very hard to find your place again after being logged out for even an hour or so. The lack of face-to-face conversations took its toll at this point especially. Our face-to-face meet ups with our smaller groups were a great way of creating some clarity when Wikibooks got so crowded, however I don't feel this solved any of the problems online, as the rest of the users who were not in our group would continue to add to and edit the page. There was a tainted environment, I felt, with thee being the pressure of a deadline, which does not usually apply to the general 'collective intelligence'. With this being a university assignment, however, I feel there was less of a change of having our work sabotaged by other users, as everybody working on the project were working towards a grade and trying their best to get as good a grade as possible. This included helping each other, engaging with others ideas, contributing to the Wikibook and helping to edit others work to improve it even more. Overall, like you said, out project ended very positively, and with success.

14buchananL (discuss • contribs) 18:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

ToriettaawI think you have made some really good points with this. I agree at the start with internet users should be more active and less passive however I felt Wikipedia is not an easy or effective platform for this. I feel there should be more of an advance in this area which is more accessible and easy for all users to contribute and be more active to without having to have the knowledge of actually being able to use the site. Being technically less able I found this hard and would therefore need to spend more time trying to learn how to use it than someone who had spent a lot of time and knew how it worked. Facebook works well in that most people pick it up very quickly and it is not hard to grasp or learn technically. For example there could be some people who have a lot of knowledge on a subject but can not express it as they do not have the technical ability. I think if there was a site which was easy to use and pick up it might entice people to be more active and less passive in the online environment. Eilidh no.1 (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
There are signs that you understand some of the core parts of the module and have embraced the themes of collaboration through providing generous feedback to others, although we would expect a far greater and sustained engagement. Unfortunately, your main content was posted in the discussion rather than the chapter itself, and it should reference where ideas and material have come from. Your exercises integrate quotations, but you need to make sure these are fully referenced.

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives a good brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a good range of concepts associated with your subject, and the effort to deliver critical definitions, drawing from relevant literature and scholarship, and your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is very much in evidence. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a good range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of 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 suggests minimally sufficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Acceptable engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Limited reflexivity and creativity, and a somewhat insecure management of discussion pages

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 14:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)