User talk:LewisCollie

Hi I'm LewisCollie, I am here as part of a group learning to use Wikibooks as part of a Digital Media and Culture course.

LewisCollie (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

In terms of aiding workflow, the traditional social media sites (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc) aren't wholly useful. YouTube in particular could be exempt from this due to its vast array of how-to videos, but these are often lost in amongst the entertainment media on the same site. Similarly, Twitter and Facebook have the capability to bring their users legitimately helpful information, the way a news site might. However, they are also programmed with algorithms to bring the user what they want to see or are comfortable with (Pierre Lévy's 'filter bubbles' concept) meaning your feed is susceptible to becoming overrun with pictures of cute dogs and tweets about fajitas.

In my experience of Wiki*edia, the experience is far more streamlined. The information there is less likely to get lost in a sea of unimportant data, as user behaviour patterns are different. Whereas you may go to social media sites with the intention of just browsing, wiki use is a far more channelled activity, with the user knowing what they want before they get there, in most cases.

LewisCollie (discuss • contribs) 11:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@LewisCollie:

Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is in relation to Understanding and Engagement elements, it should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band overall.

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.

This post is at the lower end of this grade band, so there’s clearly room for improvement here. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and (especially for this, perhaps, the Understanding) criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets. Less instrumentally, and more in relation to this particular post, it's a little brief and needs extending to allow you the headroom to explore the ideas in detail. In addition, Levy: did he come up with that idea, or was it just something that appeared on a slide in connection with his ideas? Either way, when referring to this, a link to the evidence is always useful, as is referring to the original source material. This kind of detail with prove essential in this, and future uni work.

Additionally, making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would go a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, as you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this will make a considerable difference.

Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are ok, although again a little brief. Remember that the comments are "worth" as much as posts themselves. The reason for this is not only to help encourage discussion (a key element of wiki collaboration!) but also to get you to reflect upon your own work. This can all, of course be used to fuel ideas that might form part of your project work. I like that you are beginning to discuss in an open and critical way (that is to say, you've responded to what other people are saying and are contributing meaningfully to discussion - arguably the civic element of wiki that you ought to be thinking about, which you clearly are). Just needs a bit more engagement with the relevant scholarship to extend this arguments.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Lewis! You make a few very good points about the way algorithms and general clutter of sites affect the way social media can be used for work, and you kept them to the point. I do like that you mentioned the "filter bubbles" idea and I think that's an excellent way to describe how people act and interact on social media sites. The way the algorithms work certainly doesn't help in that regard, since when a person visits a page or watches a video, they'll see more content just like that, which I believe certainly helps to reinforce their own filter bubble. With regards to Wiki*edia, I believe that people use it just like google, since Wikipedia itself is almost an extension of that search engine. Wikipedia articles are often the first thing to come up when googling a particular topic, so it would make sense that people come to the Wiki with a particular topic in mind. ZachIsWack (discuss • contribs) 11:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

In terms of my personal online data trail, I would class myself as extremely visible. I have Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, PSN, Spotify, and many more online accounts, almost too myriad to name. Whether or not I am entirely active on all of these sites is a different matter.

In 1993, Howard Rheingold defined the idea of 'online communities' on the newly-emerging internet of the time. Social networks are the natural progression of these online communities. I believe that in gaming culture especially, the idea of community has been adopted more than almost anywhere else. The tired stereotype of a Windows 96 PC in Mom's basement has been blasted out of the water by the explosion of gaming as a multi-billion dollar industry. Aside from the competitions, now held in the arenas previously used for things such as NBA finals, there are sub-cultures such as modding, inviting the player to become part of the thing they love, and cosplay, an example of how an online culture has bled into the real world.

Despite playing games myself, I am not nearly as visible in these communities as the vast majority of people who would define themselves as gamers. Similarly, there are those with millions of followers across the "traditional" social media (Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, etc.) who my 600 odd followers pale in comparison to. However, your activity level on these platforms defines your visibility far more than your following. It is quite possible for someone with 100 followers to have a tweet go viral through retweeting and liking.

We, as users, have become big business for social media companies. The information we share with them: our age, likes and dislikes, location, race, and gender, all plays into their hands as they direct marketing at us from all angles. There is also information going to these companies however, that is outwith our control. Spyware comes in through the back door of your internet browser and sees nearly everything you do online. The amount of times I have been doing online shopping and then later seen an advert for a product I was just looking at are near enough uncountable.

This means numbers are a fundamental part of any social media business model. Even the likes of Snapchat, initially just a service for sending selfies to friends, has incorporated corporations such as Sky Sports and the Daily Mail into its Discover feature. In his lecture on Digital Labour, Thomas Allmer spoke about the role we play as consumers on the internet, and sometimes this is entirely subconcious. In his (Dis)like Facebook: Dialectical and Critical Perspectives on Social Media a study is referenced that showed 57% of people believed the main problem with social media was data abuse or misuse, so it is clearly an issue people are aware of.

So then, would it be fair to say that it is capitalism that drives social networks? In short, yes. There is a reason that Silicon Valley plays home to so many millionaire tech moguls, yet you pay nothing to use the platform they created. Based on the current state of affairs, it would not be too hard to imagine a network that was more advertising than socialising coming in the near future.

LewisCollie (discuss • contribs) 12:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey Lewis, this was a really enjoyable read. I felt the main thing that made it so great for myself was the layout. You split it into two sections which made it really easy to understand the points you were making, and you avoided any clutter by separating your online visibility from the data trails. It was also aesthetically pleasing the way you set out the photos. I also like the point you made on how Snapchat has evolved. I also completely agree with the idea that money is impacting heavily on these different social media pages. Harry1875 (discuss • contribs) 15:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Lewis, firstly I think its really impressive how you laid this post out, the images and links make it easy to follow and it also looks really professional! I think its interesting the points you make about online gaming, as although I do play video games myself, I have never ventured into the "online" aspect of them, but I see what you mean when talking about them being whole communities. It is a whole new level of visibility online I think, because technically you are not visible as yourself, but as a player or character, yet you can connect with and contact so many other people just as you would with any other account online. I agree with the point you make about Spyware, I too often see advertisements on social media for sites or items I was just looking at in another tab, and it can sometimes come across as quite unnerving. I know there is an option to disable cookies on your browser which stops this, but I would think the majority of users would not know this or would not be bothered in doing so. I definitely agree on social media becoming a home to more and more businesses. I can't think of any mainstream social media platform that doesn't incorporate adverts into it's timelines and newsfeeds, so subtly sometimes that its unnoticeable. I think the statistic you provided from Thomas Allmer's book is really useful in reinforcing this concept, and you seem to have done a lot of research on this topic which helps my understanding of the issues. Cathym97 (discuss • contribs) 11:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

The layout on this page is incredible and I'm definitely going to be using it in the near future; you made everything look so clean and professional that I thought I was reading an article at first. You do raise some excellent points about advertising and how closely it is tied into the social media we use and the things we look at online. Your prediction of a network that is "more advertising than socialising" really struck a chord with me, since that seems to be the way that media is progressing these days. Though they aren't tied into what we look at online, back in the States there are far more advertisements on television than there used to be, especially on children's cartoons, and I think this is representative of advertising itself gaining a greater foothold into the entertainment industry, much like how it's become more prevalent on social media. I also liked how you tied gaming cultures into this exercise, since they are among some of the most active communities online, and their activity can make just about anything related to their particular game viral not just within that community but within the greater online community as a whole. ZachIsWack (discuss • contribs) 13:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

It would be a massive understatement to say that the internet is a big place. The online community is continually expanding, in some cases this is for the better and in others it is detrimental to web use. With so much information online nowadays, it can be hard to use the internet in a manor that fully utilises its potential as a tool for research, work, and communication.

Of course this is just the part of the internet that we can see. The web is a far more expansive resource to some than others, usually with more nefarious plans than contributing to a Wikibook. The deep/dark web is a huge part of the internet community that the vast majority of us will never see. This is often compared to an iceberg, the tip of which is visible to us but the majority remains unseen below the water.

While it can be difficult to do so, it is still doable. One thing that helps me personally is staying away from social media while navigating the internet. Nine times out of ten, I don't use these sites on desktop anyway, so if it means putting my phone in another room for a few hours this massively increases my workflow.

In terms of Wiki*edia, I have greatly enjoyed engaging with these sites as they are so free from distraction. There are no annoying banner ads or pop-ups to remove you from the experience, just plain text and images. While sometimes it is easy to get sucked down the rabbit hole of information on here, I haven't found this to be the case while doing these Wiki Exercises, or the Wikibooks project.

In terms of my groups attempts to improve workflow while doing the Wikibooks Project, I believe that the resources are provided by Wiki*edia to do this. Our section has a healthy talk page, where multiple groups have found it easy to collaborate (mainly through the discovery of the 'pinging' feature) and everything you need in terms of information, images, and statistics can be easily sourced in the left hand tool bar under 'sister projects'.

Were we to use another site to communicate, I feel this would be more difficult. For one thing, being able to situate an entire body of work within one ecosystem is extremely beneficial to the project overall, with Wikibooks you are rarely more than a couple of clicks away from anything you need. Secondly, despite the myriad of information on the site, it is still possible to isolate yourself to one topic, there is no 'if you enjoyed this, you'll love this' recommendation system that annoyingly points you in the direction of things you would never be interested in.

The information overload is something that makes the internet both amazing and difficult at the same time. The trillions of pages of information mean you can research any topic in depth, or watch hours of cat videos, or do both simultaneously if you so pleased. What sets Wiki*edia apart from the rest of the internet is that it streamlines this process in terms of both consumption and contribution, making it the perfect site for the projects this module has seen us undertake.

151.226.246.234 (discuss) 11:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey Lewis, as always another interesting assessment with an easy to follow layout and some great ideas. I really appreciated the idea of the internet being like an iceberg to every individual and I find it mind-blowing when you actually consider the size of the internet and the amount of information available. You really cannot overemphasize how large it truly is. I have seen that you have picked up quite a lot of skills whilst using Wiki*pedia and the 'sister projects' and I am impressed with how many of these new found features you have been able to implement onto your own personal wikibook page. It is good to see you are enjoying the use of these websites and I feel that your skills will be put to good use when working on the group wikibook chapter. Harry1875 (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@LewisCollie:

The introductory remarks at the beginning of this chapter are quite visual and alert the reader to the image of a doubling – a theme which is implied throughout the chapter in terms of information flows and how they are regulated through both connectivity and user behaviour. Very interesting, and sets up the narrative of the chapter as a whole.

This narrativising work is extended into the accounts of Chomsky, Adorno and others – a well written and concise summary of each approach and some critical commentary included. I think that more could be made of making interwiki links to various relevant sections in this, and other, chapters (especially, perhaps, chapters on News, Evidence and Memory in Online Communications, the section on private sphere linking to Privacy in a Digital Age, or certainly there are whole sections in the Digital Labour chapter that are of immediate relevance here.) The narrativisation is excellent on the section involving the work of Pariser, and extending the Five Filters to Five Data Points.

Some really useful work on personalisation, and excellent coverage of information flows. These sections feature evidence of wider reading and research, as references to specific peer-reviewed materials to substantiate the argument. The discussion of data trails is good – however, it doesn’t attain the same level of criticality as these other examples (although some references to academic sources are used). This section is also an example where the text-heavy nature means that it’s fairly heavy going to read. Use of wiki commons images to illustrate the argument would help to not only break up the text, but to make more of the platform’s functionality.

Media is already a plural term.

Some more joined-up thinking could have extended and beefed up the arguments in relation to the section on “Control over what we see”. There’s a subsection on “filter bubbles” here which seems to repeat already-mentioned material. A wikilink to other parts of the chapter where this is already discussed would probably have done just as well as these few sentences, which sort of appear as an anomaly in this section.

The glossary is really useful – not quite exhaustive, but good for quick reference purposes. Use of interwiki links in here would have been useful. The references section again evidences research, reading and sharing of resources, although my feeling is that this could have been extended significantly, especially through looking at what other chapters were writing about, and making the connections between there and the arguments here more explicit. Some of the formatting seems to go awry in the middle, so a little more joined-up thinking and a little more effort in presentation there would have been useful.

Poor. Your contribution to the book page gives an acceptable brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a qualified familiarity with concepts associated with your subject, and although there is an effort to deliver critical definitions, the grasp of conceptual and analytical issues although reasonable, tends to be a little limited and insecure. 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 limited 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 minimally sufficient range and depth of subject matter.

Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is overall (and particularly in relation to Understanding and Engagement elements), that should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band, relative to the descriptor

Poor. Among other things, poor entries may just offer links without real comment or apparent point. They may offer nothing more than poor-quality synopsis or description of material of dubious relevance. They may have serious clarity problems (including dead links, random graphics) which affect comprehension (or even worse, admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement). They might be off-topic, private trivia, or of unclear relevance. The wiki markup formatting will be of a poor standard.

• Reading and research:
  • lack evidence of critical engagement with set materials, featuring command of a limited range of relevant materials and analyses
  • little evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
• Argument and analysis:
  • poor argument through judgement relating to key issues, concepts or procedures
  • lack of evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position);
  • limited evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections);
  • evidence of independent critical ability lacking

• Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content suggests somewhat deficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
• lack of engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
• Lacking in reflexive and creative use of discussion pages