User talk:Pola 2607

Hi! Hi!

My name is Paulina and this is my Wikibooks user page. I am student of University of Stirling where I work on my degree in film, Media and Spanish.

I created this page in order to work on my Wiki project that I do on my Digital Media and Culture module. I am going to use this page to reflect on Wikibooks and engage in discussion why and how people use it.

Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 13:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

The presence of the Internet in the life of human beings is today unavoidable and undisputable. Social Network Sites, blogs and Wikipedia became people’s unescapable company and, following Jaron Lanier (2011) thought, they are extensions of human bodies. Google and Wikipedia can be seen as human’s expanded memory whereas web cameras and mobile phone can be considered as the remote eyes. Therefore it is important to be aware of the influence that digital technologies have on the present and future of the civilization and to reflect and debate on it.

Considering the interactionist tradition which claims that the notion of “self” is constructed through interactions with others, Social Network Sites and blogs take a huge part in creating and re – creating social reality. They are, however, not only the tools used for communication but also allow their users to express and present themselves to the public. In the pre – Internet era this need was fulfilled by writing books, diaries, taking pictures and collecting them in the photo albums to later show them to friends and family.

The Internet, considered in the sense of Web 2.0, where users become not only consumers but also active producers of its content, brings the questions about notion of collective intelligence. An enormous amount of data is generated by people in Internet every day by posting pictures and statuses on Facebook, uploading videos on YouTube, writing posts on blogs or topics on Wikipedia. It makes the Web an ongoing, collaborating project that acknowledges humans as the resources of knowledge. Recognizing that other people have desires, hopes and talents brings some undeniable benefits and it is needed for social growth. There are groups present in the Web that connect with similar interests, like fan pages on Facebook or thematic blogs that can be edited and improved by their users. In addition, the members of all kind of minorities are also able to find their place in the virtual world to connect with each other and express their issues to the wider public. That has a positive impact on society from the ethical and political point of view. By considering an individual as an intelligent being, the Web helps him or her to gain a true social identity.

There is, however, a significant danger of this wide spread belief in collective intelligence. Pierre Levy explained it by making an analogy to ant colony, where the success of the collective depends on blind or automatic activities of the individual. These concerns apply especially to Wikipedia which is the widest and most popular source of knowledge existing in the Internet at the moment. It is a product restlessly created by people and for people that heavily relies on the notion of collective intelligence. Is, however, the idea that collective is all – wise utopian and dangerous? Jaron Lanier (2006) expressed his fears about that matter in his essay Digital Maoism: The Hazards of The New Online Collectivism. He makes a valid point about the lack personality and context in Wikipedian entries which makes them unable to convey the full meaning. The lack of authorship but most importantly personality of an individual who takes responsibility for his Wikipedian activity makes the knowledge presented there less reliable. This is the most significant difference between Wikipedia and social media platforms where individuals possess identity and personality.

Obviously, the function of Wikipedia and social media platforms is different. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that should be mainly used for collecting and spreading the knowledge. Even in that case, the context and personality of the author is important in order to do this in most efficient way. After all, any kind of writing can be considered as self – expression. There is also the question of the authors on Wikipedia being unpaid. As Lanier (2006) noticed, professional writing consumes time and in order to make time writers often need to get paid. That brings on mind the question of blog and bloggers who often choose to write without salary. In my opinion, however, their case is different. Blogs can be considered as new form of diaries where author, whose personality is available to sense, write with the pure need of self - expression. I would argue that this is the case even with thematic blogs where authors write about fashion, cooking, films etc. Unpaid bloggers do not claim to be professional writers like authors on Wikipedia do. Interestingly, thematic blogs gained significance in the recent years and their authors often get paid by advertisers.

The Wikipedia considered as reliable source of information due to the fact that it can be fact – checked by anyone edited is an utopian vision of it. Most of the authors creating Wikipedia are not professional researchers with the time and skills to research and review the complex topics. The passion and motivation is often not enough to produce truly scientifically reliable text.

In conclusion, ‘collective intelligence in order to fulfill its goal of ‘mutual recognition and enrichment of individuals’ (Levy, 1997) needs to have its roots in the culture. Otherwise there is a danger of ‘hive mind’ becoming subordinated to crowd psychology and consequences can be tragic as it happened previously in the history in Nazi Germany. There is a need for reflection on the notion of ‘collective ‘. The blind openness to it is not going to be beneficial for technological or social development but structure and certain degree of control.

Bibliography:

Lanier, Jaron (2006) ‘Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New OnlineCollectivism’ in Edge: The Third Culture

Lanier, Jaron (2010) You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto. New York: Vintage

Lévy, Pierre (1999) Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s Emerging World in Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books

Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 08:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Pola 2607:

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.

Excellent. Among other things, these entries will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. They will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. They will address the assignment tasks in a thoughtful way. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts. They will be informed by serious reading and reflection, are likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.

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, firstly it's rather long! But on the whole, you've really started to think about the relevant underlying issues, and to critically engage with these through reference to and application of key concepts in the literature. Very, very good start.

Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are especially good. I like that you have engaged in discussion 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). One thing that I would like to have read more about was in relation to your really insightful remark about personality - yes, I completely agree that this is a pivotal difference between social media and knowledge-building community platforms like wikis. What I would like more of, is your engagement with these qualitative differences. Wikis, like encyclopedias, rely to an extent on the anonymity of authors (even though, of course, they also relay on transparency of discussion!) because there is a cultural move away from the value of single authorship, and towards collective or community authorship. It would be wise to read up and research on these issues.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 10:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Comment by Louise Park (Misslouisepark) Your work is shown to be very well researched and thought out. Your inclusion of the bibliography to back up your sources is a great addition for us readers as we can now go on and do further reading into your topic of discussion. Out of your three sources, which one do you think offers the greatest insight into the topic you have discussed? What information do you think the other two sources are missing, if anything? You wrote about Wikipedia/social media and a sense of identity. How do you think your use of Wikipedia and social media has impacted you and your own sense of identity?

Misslouisepark (discuss • contribs) 15:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Misslouisepark:

Hi Louise! Thank you for your comment. You made a very good point actually. I did not explore my own experience with social media and Wikipedia. My use of social media is rather limited. Restricted mainly to Facebook that I treat as necessary tool for communication. I don't upload pictures, I don't update my statuses but I use it daily. Interestingly, however, it is also a form of self - expression for me through 'liking' for example that are visible for public. In terms of Wikipedia, I am guilty of using it for my personal research, often without checking the validity of information provided there.

Answering your question how these digital tools impacted my sense of identity. They did vastly as they probably impacted every user. Even though, I am mainly a consumer in social media (in the past I was, however, quite active 'producer' on YouTube and Vimeo), I am aware that they changed my way of communicating with people, probably even looking at people as they provide me with glimpse at their personal lives. Wikipedia changed the way I do my personal research due to the fact how easy it to search for information. Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 00:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Misslouisepark (discuss • contribs) 15:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Pola 2607::Comment by Suzanne Clark (SuzanneClark22) You have clearly researched this topic well and with the use of a bibliography you have made it easy to find where your information came from in order for readers to the do their own research. You talk about Web 2.0 and how there is a "collective intelligence" present on the internet, however do you not feel that it is a limited presence in the creation side of the internet and the majority of users nowadays are in fact consumers and not creators? Also your point about bloggers not claiming to be authors whereas Wikipedia editors do is one to be questioned. The lack of authorship on the site, the anonymity that is present, contends the fact that the writers are truly authors if they are getting no credit for the work they are doing.

@SuzanneClark22:

Hi Suzanne! Thank you for your comment! It really made me think. Isn't it an example of a great power of digital collective intelligence? But that's just the digression. Coming back to your questions, I agree with the first statement. It seems that there is no escape from blind consumptionism and the Internet makes its glorification even more shameless. However, there is hope. I think every user of social media is a creator, producer to some extent. Even simply 'liking' something or posting a picture, updating a status, commenting is producing. Through this type of self - expression every user contributes to expanding the Web. Of course this is also problematic in political and economic terms but we all produce the enormous amount of data daily.

Your second point, the notion of anonymity is incredibly valid and I think you are right. As we can see on example of anonymous medieval monks writing scientific, heavily researched pieces 'in the name of God' not theirs should not be forgotten. In case of Wikipedia, I think there is the combination of lack personality AND context that makes it less reliable. Also, sharing the knowledge anonymously online takes away the responsibility for that content.

Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 00:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

SuzanneClark22 (discuss • contribs) 12:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC) SuzanneClark22 (discuss • contribs) 13:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 20:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC) You made interesting points about the problems with collective knowledge both in general and in regards to Wikipedia. One of the points you raised several times was the lack of personality and individuality involved with Wikipedia writers in comparison to social media sites. Is it possible that the collaborative knowledge on Wikipedia would be enhanced if the members were to show more of their identity and personality in a similar way to a social media site, by having a public profile perhaps? It is interesting to think about how the writing on the site might change, but it is questionable whether Wikipedia would become any more factual or reliable. For the type of website that Wikipedia is, it maybe benefits more from being anonymous. GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 20:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@GailZWiki:

Hi Gail! Thanks a lot for your great comment! This is in fact a great idea. Putting not only the name but also a face to shared content would be a way to make "Wikipedians" more responsible for it. I don't really see much benefits in Wikipedia being anonymous apart from the fact that anyone can edit without consequences for their reputation and online identity. Of course, in case of Wikipedia it is about the knowledge not about the looks. Do you think that your perception of a writer would change dependent on the way he or she presents himself/herself on the hypotetic Wikipedian profile picture? I find this very interesting.

Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 00:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

There is no doubt that the current society is characterised by the enormous growth of information. The amount of information that is available for people around the world is greater than ever. It is caused by in particular ‘explosion of media and media products’, significant ‘increase of occupations that involve dealing with information and global spread of social and digital media that altered the ‘relevance of information itself in present era’ (Webster 2002). Many scholars (but also journalists and politics) calls that kind of society the ‘information society’. However, as Webster (2002) argues, the more relevant would a term knowledge society, which indicates that changes that the information causes nowadays is more qualitative than quantitive, which means that the main characteristic of knowledge society is the fact that it is based on theoretic knowledge.

This incredibly vast availability and circulation of information around the world brings the notion of ‘global village’, the term formulated by Marshall McLuhan (Lister, 2009) that describers the phenomenon of the world interconnected due to technological devices and innovations. In this kind of society, there is the need for the notion of privacy and surveillance to be rethought. We live in the era where individuals constantly watch over one another but are also being watched by institutions, business and governments.

Considering the interactionist model, human beings built their identities through the relations with others. Therefore communicating and sharing information is one of the people’s basic needs. Social and digital media enable us to easily fulfil this need but it does not come without the downfalls. Thanks to the availability of social and digital media, users are able to easily gain the information but are also creators of information of various kind. Everyday they we supply the digital platforms in enormous amount of personal data. We do this not only by providing the most obvious information about ourselves such as telephone number, house or e - mail address, profile picture but also by updating our Facebook status, location or even by ‘liking’ an commenting on other people’s posts, Skype calls and watching videos on YouTube or Vimeo. Even by researching our favourite blogs and websites we leave our data trails and we openly agree that information about us may be used by them as in majority of the cases the websites inform users about ‘cookies’, We leave our digital footprints, data trails created while using Internet, through each of these activities. There is a need to explore this phenomenon and set the questions: how the information we provide are being used? Who uses them? For what purpose are they being used?

It is almost impossible not to be part of social media in current society. Having a Facebook profile is a necessity for many, including students as it is considered as a main tool for communication. However, by signing up to any of the social platform is associated with giving up, to smaller or greater degree, our privacy. According to Tavani (2008) definition be left alone or as the right to determine for oneself which areas of life should be accessible to others – or as a combination of the two. But what happens when people voluntarily agree to hand over their privacy and more importantly, why do they do it? One of the aspect of online visibility that is worth exploring is how willingly we share online information about our location. We tag our current location to social media posts or turn the location visibility on our phones tablets and laptops while using Google maps or share it with banks while using contactless bank cards. Our movement is therefore constantly monitored not only by our Facebook friends but also by big institutions that store that information in their server and able to use it for various purposes. This is rather a personal issue for me as my privacy is important for me and also, because I am aware that by any kind of activity on social media I provide information about me. Hence, I have never posted a real profile picture of myself on any of these platforms, I do not update my statuses but I am still quite an active user of Facebook. I comment of other people’s post almost every day and more importantly I communicate with them. Therefore Facebook possess a huge data base about myself and it is not clear how the information I provide is going to be used. I do not have Instagram, Twitter or Snapchat account but it definitely does not make less visible online. I am disturbingly aware the amount information about me that is being hold by various social platforms is sufficient to create rather accurate profile of me.

Another alarming aspect of our online visibility is the fact how we use the internet banking or online shopping. By doing this, we provide information about our bank details, house addresses and shopping preferences. I have to admit that am also guilty of it, despite the awareness of how that data can be abused. Considering I also use my phone and tablet to transfer the money, my online visibility to financial institution becomes even more disturbing.

Obviously, there is economic dimension. On social media advertising becomes targeted and personalised to user activities and interests. Through our social media conscious communication and creation of content we provide unintentionally data that are being used for economic purposes of commercial platforms.

There is also a political aspect of online visibility. In the era of global terrorism, terrorists often use social media as a tool for communication. Isis famously used Twitter to plan their assassinations. There is obviously a need to control social media platform by institutions that deal with crime to prevent it. However, this is often used as an abuse of privacy of common people that have nothing to do with terrorism or any kind of criminal activity. It is the same case with the drug dealers, human traffickers etc. There is ongoing debate about the level of control that should exercise by governments to prevent the crimes. However, it is important to remember that excessive level of this online invigilation may lead to complete lack of privacy of Internet users. This brings on mind not only McLuhan’s notion of ‘global village’ but the Orwell’s super – state where everyone is constantly closely monitored by infamous Big Brother.

To conclude, being invisible online is undoubtedly impossible. Partial loss of our privacy is one of the major downfalls of ‘digital development’. However, it is important to know our rights (for instance: Data Protection Act 1988) and take the active part in the discussion about the subject. The protection of privacy of the online users matters and none of us would like to see their personal information being used against them. The good example for it is the episode of television show ‘Black Mirror’ in which teenage boy’s computer is being hacked and he is forced to fulfil orders of faceless blackmailers to protect his personal data.

Bibliography:

Fuchs, Christian (2009), 'Social Networking Sites and the Surveillance Society, Salzburg/ Vienna: Forschungsgruppe UTI.

Lister et al (2009) New Media: A Critical Introduction (2nded.). Abingdon: Routledge

Tavani, Herman T. (2008), ‘Informational privacy: concepts, theories, and controversies’, in Kenneth E. Himma and Herman T. Tavani (eds), The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 131–164.

Webster, F. (2002) ‘The information society revisited’. In L. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of new media: social shaping and social consequences of ICTs. London: SAGE.

Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 10:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 10:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Pola 2607: Hi, I enjoyed reading your post! I agree that it is worrying how little control we have over our information and how we are being monitored by companies and governments. It made me think about Edward Snowdon, who released NSA documents about how extensive their surveillance operations were. Their operations included GCHQ, the British Government Communication Headquarters, and The Guardian published the information that Snowdon leaked from the NSA. Although it was scary to see how much control these government agencies have, they do justify the means as they need to stop terrorism and criminal activity.

The episode of Black Mirror you referenced is interesting because the invasion of privacy was done to punish the people targeted for terrible things they had done (spoiler alert!). The relates to my point about the NSA and GCHQ. The episode is a good example in seeing how easy it is for people with the right knowhow to access your information and be manipulative with it.

I think you're right that we need to know our rights and we definitely do need to stay aware, educated and critical of the sites that we engage with - as you said everything from 'liking' a status, to sharing bank details. - Katienotcatriona (discuss • contribs) 12:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Katienotcatriona::

Thank you for your comment! Bringing into the discussion Edward Snowden and how he exposed digital surveillance perfectly illustrates my point. The level of control that government agencies have over our privacy is more than disturbing. Especially if we are not aware how and for what purposes they use our data.

However, there is a need to fight the crime that circulates in the Web. Terrorism, pedophilia, drugs and human trafficking are real issues and they are growing in the social media era. To what degree the digital surveillance should therefore be allowed? And how to protect common users from being overly exposed to it? Black Mirror shows that everyone have something to hide, something to be ashamed off, something that should not be exposed to wider circles.

Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 10:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Pola 2607: Yes it's a very complex issue indeed! On the one hand, crime needs to be fought, but on the other, it's at the expense of the privacy of innocent people. Maybe our privacy is something we need to sacrifice, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear etc. but then there are consequences of giving that much control to one group of people. It's hard to find a middle ground! - Katienotcatriona (discuss • contribs) 11:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

The society we live in is often described in academic and popular discourse as the information society. Enormous technological development, innovation and diffusion enable constant flow of information that individuals are exposed to. In the present era the information is not only available through, radio, TV and print media. The Internet became the main source of information. Being a digital media user, which is almost unavoidable, implies consuming a great amount of information every time we log into our Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or Reedit account. We have to deal with the pictures, videos and post updates edited by our ‘digital friends’ but also various types of political, economic and celebrity news that websites and fan pages bombard us. The availability of information is definitely a positive aspect of digital era, however when we face information overload it can be incredibly hard to distinguish fake and real news. Therefore, it is difficult to make sense of the reality that surround us. How to be sure that what we read, for instance, about presidential election in America, refugee crisis or love dilemma of celebrity is truth? Especially if many social media posts are constructed in the form of ‘click bait’ with controversial headline, which is often derived from context. It obviously have economic background as ‘click baits’, sensation, simply sell very well, generating money. Sadly, even respected newspapers such as Guardian or The Independent fall for providing sensational articles that have nothing to with the real news. It is worrying as considering that I'm from Poland and would love to be able to read about political and social situation in my country and too often the information provided by news services online are not believable. I often struggle with information overload and try to double check the information, especially if it is a topic that I am concerned about. However, it is physically impossible to do this with every information. Another aspect of information overload is the perspective that the author takes, his agenda and context. A supporter of Democrats will be writing about Donald Trump differently than Republican. Obviously, the most important is to rely on facts to be able to construct a critical opinion on particular subject but sometimes distinguishing facts from myths is almost impossible. In my opinion, it is unavoidable downfall of information society but there is still a long way before we reach the paradise destination of ‘knowledge society’ described by Webster as the society that is based on theoretical knowledge, not just any, often speculative, sensational information.

=== FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ===igital surveillance perfectly illustrates my point. The level of control that government agencies have over our privacy is more than disturbing. Especially if we are not aware how and for what purposes they use our data.

However, there is a need to fight the crime that circulates in the Web. Terrorism, pedophilia, drugs and human trafficking are real issues and they are growing in the social media era. To what degree the digital surveillance should therefore be allowed? And how to protect common users from being overly exposed to it? Black Mirror shows that everyone have something to hide, something to be ashamed off, something that should not be exposed to wider circles.

Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 10:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Pola 2607: Yes it's a very complex issue indeed! On the one hand, crime needs to be fought, but on the other, it's at the expense of the privacy of innocent people. Maybe our privacy is something we need to sacrifice, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear etc. but then there are consequences of giving that much control to one group of people. It's hard to find a middle ground! - Katienotcatriona (discuss • contribs) 11:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

The society we live in is often described in academic and popular discourse as the information society. Enormous technological development, innovation and diffusion enable constant flow of information that individuals are exposed to. In the present era the information is not only available through, radio, TV and print media. The Internet became the main source of information. Being a digital media user, which is almost unavoidable, implies consuming a great amount of information every time we log into our Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or Reedit account. We have to deal with the pictures, videos and post updates edited by our ‘digital friends’ but also various types of political, economic and celebrity news that websites and fan pages bombard us. The availability of information is definitely a positive aspect of digital era, however when we face information overload it can be incredibly hard to distinguish fake and real news. Therefore, it is difficult to make sense of the reality that surround us. How to be sure that what we read, for instance, about presidential election in America, refugee crisis or love dilemma of celebrity is truth? Especially if many social media posts are constructed in the form of ‘click bait’ with controversial headline, which is often derived from context. It obviously have economic background as ‘click baits’, sensation, simply sell very well, generating money. Sadly, even respected newspapers such as Guardian or The Independent fall for providing sensational articles that have nothing to with the real news. It is worrying as considering that I'm from Poland and would love to be able to read about political and social situation in my country and too often the information provided by news services online are not believable. I often struggle with information overload and try to double check the information, especially if it is a topic that I am concerned about. However, it is physically impossible to do this with every information. Another aspect of information overload is the perspective that the author takes, his agenda and context. A supporter of Democrats will be writing about Donald Trump differently than Republican. Obviously, the most important is to rely on facts to be able to construct a critical opinion on particular subject but sometimes distinguishing facts from myths is almost impossible. In my opinion, it is unavoidable downfall of information society but there is still a long way before we reach the paradise destination of ‘knowledge society’ described by Webster as the society that is based on theoretical knowledge, not just any, often speculative, sensational information.

On the other hand, isn’t the ability to consume and produce information a freedom? The fact that we are able to post, blog and giving our opinions on various topic somehow empowering? Freedom of expression, freedom of information and freedom of being able to criticize and assess what we read and watch is, in my opinion, the prize we have to prize for information overload.

This idea, therefore, leads us to the notion of being a creator of information. As I mentioned above, the ability to share our opinions and idea with the world is incredible. Being a part of digital collective intelligence can definitely enhance us as individuals and is beneficial for society as a whole. But what happens if we feel the irresistible constant need to share? If we feel that we are entitled to give the opinions on subjects do not have enough knowledge about? That contributes to creating this deep sea of often irrelevant information that others have to deal with.

Taking into consideration the fact that we live in 'always - on' culture and being connected to the Internet in the literal sense is not the only of being connected to the network. We take pictures and videos while on holiday or party with the intention to share it later with our digital friends. Getting inpatient when we are not able to connect to wi - fi and check the information on Wikipedia. Does it mean that we addicted to creating and consuming information? The notion of the 'fear of missing out' is known to every user of digital media. We need to have constant access to it in order to feel like a part of society. We are terrified of missing an important e - mail or message on Facebook. That is why I often take a complete break from digital media. I turn my phone and laptop off and go out without even explaining my absence. However, most people feel the need to announce their break from Facebook by posting a status update.

The strategies I use to stay sane when information flow becomes to heavy are mainly omission and filtering. I try to ignore the one that rely on sensationalism, choosing believable sources to read my daily political news and prioritize the information that are related to me in some way or the one that simply interest me. Sometimes, when the time allows me, I review it by using academic sources or by checking it with the other people who have knowledge on given topic.

In terms of coping with workflow of Wikiproject, I need to admit that it is demanding. I am aware that in order to make it a valuable experience I need to work daily on contribution toward it. Living in different city than the members of my group and working full – time makes the real face – to face meeting often impossible. Fortunately, thanks to digital media such as Facebook or Wikibooks discussion boards we are able to communicate and exchange ideas between each other. Social media helped us to plan our project, divide the reading and therefore, approaches to the topic. To improve our workflow we set up detailed daily plan in which we organized our tasks to meet the deadline and deliver the best work we possibly can. What helps us is the fact that we are truly interested in the subject we are working on and are able to discuss about different aspects of it.

Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 10:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Pola 2607: Comment: Hi Paulina - I found your post really interesting! I found the part where you spoke about how you pick relevant information particularly interesting, especially when you spoke about how you try and verify what news is to some extent 'accurate' or not. I was wondering then if you used social media websites for finding the latest news or if you tended to just completely avoid them in favour of more reliable services? I've found that I've managed to get my news feeds on both websites to be as 'reliable' as possible by mainly checking in with others - however, I know that even this doesn't always work. - Samwar97 (discuss • contribs) 14:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Samwar97: Thank you for your comment! Being able to distinguish between facts and myths available on social media is not always possible as nobody has a specialist background in every subject and fact - checking every available information would take us probably a lifetime. I tend to rely on 'reliable services' in order to get the latest news: Paper versions of magazines and daily newspapers, BBC news services etc. Many magazines that provide well grounded information in their paper versions rely mainly on 'click baits' articles on Facebook in order to generate profits. As you said, the golden rule, in my opinion, is to compare information from different sources to be able to shape own critical opinion on subject.

Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 20:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I consider the Wikibooks project as the most challenging and unusual assessment I encountered during my academic history. Submitting individual posts and collaborating with the large group of people was very time - consuming and demanding in terms of organization and academic readings we were required to do in order to create a valuable content. However, despite it being challenging, Wikibooks assignment allowed me to be a part of something bigger, the Wikipedia community which is based on collective intelligence. My individual and group work I put into this project will remain in the Web and hopefully will benefit people who are interested in the impact of digital media on the lives of people.

The fact that we were required to submit weekly posts related to the subjects analyzed at the lectures helped me to ground my knowledge and motivated me to do more academic readings in order to demonstrate it and be able to defend my views. However, I would argue that the time we had to complete these exercise was not efficient to create a really valuable Wikibooks entry. Considering that the posts were due just one day after the lecture put, in my opinion, unnecessary pressure on students. I am aware that the main aim of the exercise was to reflect on our personal approach in relation to topics covered at the lectures. However, I would like to be able to do more academic readings to make my post more cohesive.

The idea of commenting on posts submitted by other students is excellent. It allowed me to engage in deep, constructive discussions with people who demonstrate different views and approaches to the subjects. It was a perfect way to really understand what collective intelligence. I realized how much these online discussions enhanced my knowledge. Moreover, the fact that we were required to comment on other entries made me read them very carefully to be able summit constructive reply. I would not expect that there could be so many different approaches. It enabled me to open my mind and see the topics from different perspectives.

In terms of a group project the most challenging task was to organize ourselves. Initially I was convinced that we are going to work in small groups, with people who we know personally and I was perfectly content with this idea. However, we were forced to collaborate with many more group members and therefore, it was extremely difficult to prepare a proper plan and establish who is going to work on which section. As we had to work in large groups, I encountered many problems with choosing my own sections that I would actually be confident to write. Firstly, we prepared the plan in our small group but it was completely destroyed by necessity to combine our ideas with more people. Therefore, all the research until that point became useless for the project as I was assigned to completely different sections. Considering I lead a very busy lifestyle, with full time job and everyday commute from Glasgow to Stirling, I did not have a chance to attend the group meetings and defend my ideas. At the end I had to accept the decisions of the group but I feel that most of my entries were not as good as they could be if I had more time to research the topics more deeply. As I mentioned before, the plan we initially had was diametrically changed just few days before the deadline.

Overall, I am rather happy with the work we submitted as a group and with my individual posts. I have learned a lot not only about the influence of digital media but also about collective intelligence and working in the team. As I was forced to step down with my ideas at one point and accept the choices of other people, I have also learned about the value of humility. I am truly grateful for the experience of being a part of Wikipedia community even if it was challenging and difficult.

Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 13:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Pola2607: I really enjoyed reading your reflective account on this Wikibook Project. You went into a lot of detail about all of the issues that were faced during the project. I agree with you about this project being the most challenging and unusual task that has been put to us in our University career. Do you think that you would happily complete another Wikibooks project now that you know what is required of you? Or do you prefer compiling essays and reports? I personally prefer writing essays but I think that is because I am so accustomed to writing them. The way you summarised the experience in writing and receiving comments via Wiki is exactly how I feel, and how many other students feel as well I imagine. Did you feel that there was a difference in the conversation if you engaged with another student first rather than replying to their comment? I feel like it was much easier to steer the conversation if someone left a comment on my page. I am not sure why that was the case for me. I very much identify with your comments on the difficulties organising the group project. That is what I felt was the most difficult thing with my group. We really did struggle choosing what to write about and then it was an even more difficult task collaborating with the other people working on the same topic. I am glad you managed to complete the project even with the difficulties you mentioned. I too felt like my project was definitely not as good as it could have been due to health reasons. It is great that we both completed the tasks though! From this project, how do you think Wikibooks will be of use to your life? Misslouisepark (discuss • contribs) 16:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Misslouisepark: Thank you for your comment Louise! I would like to reflect on your question about my future with Wikibooks. To be honest, I didn't think about it. After submitting our group project I was happy that the information and knowledge we shared on our Wikibook page will stay in the Web and somehowe will probably benefit from it. However, I don't think I am going to work on creating other discussions on this platform in the very near future. But on the other hand, considering my passion for films and cinema, maybe I will enjoy editing few posts in relation this. It would probably be extremely interesting to engage with the discussion with other users who share my interests. Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 11:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Pola 2607: I found your reflective account very informative and clearly laid it with the different headings. I really liked your point about stepping down from your ideas as I understand it can be frustrating not being able to write about what you want to (especially if you had done so much reading beforehand). This was a very unusual assignment, and like you said quite time consuming. I particularly enjoyed the commenting aspect too as it allowed me to see how different people engaged with the Wiki exercises and I could comment with my own insight and examples. Has this project made you look at technology differently? EmilymDaniel (discuss • contribs) 12:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@EmilymDaniel: Thank you for your comment! In relation to your last question, I definitely have to admit that working on Wikibook project alternated my approach to technology. I find the content of the module very interesting and discussing the topics with other students enhanced and grounded my knowledge. Therefore, I realized how crucial our understanding of digital media in order to make sense of the society. I was able to reflect on privacy in social media (which is restricted), collective intelligence (invaluable), the notion of cyborgs (which I found the most interesting. The notion of everyone being a cyborg in digital era still haunts me and I'm definitely going to read more book of Sherry Sherry Turkle who deeply evaluate this phenomena). Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 11:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Pola 2607: Your perspective on the Wikibook project and exercises was interesting as you included positive and negative feedback. I agree with you that having the due dates for the Wiki Exercises being a day after the computer lab and lecture was a bit frustrating because it felt as though there wasn't enough time to do the best quality of work. The plan for the Wikibook definitely caused some confusion, and it was a shame that you weren't able to do everything you had prepared for. We should have started planning earlier so we could make time for errors like that. I do agree with you that the project was a good learning experience, and the topics are interesting to talk about. It was good to learn how to use Wikibooks and collaborate in an online discussion, and I am glad you were happy in the end with the Wikibook. GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 17:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Pola 2607:

The introduction section is incredibly well-written, and summarises some of the points which follow. I think that a concerted effort could have been made to narrativize the chapter before proceeding to the discussion proper. The overall structure that follows is well thought out, and evidences deliberation, delegation and timely organisation. Coverage of many of the salient issues surrounding the relationship between technology and self are included, although the overall feel of the chapter tends towards high-end description, rather than analysis, debate and argument.

That said, some of the sections are incredibly detailed and well written. Where theorists are listed, often it is the case that the coverage is characterised by a list of accomplishments next to some biographical and bibliographical detail – without going into discussion and application of the theories themselves. Here, you have managed to avoid the trap of biographical list, but the movement towards discussion and application of the theories could have been more detailed and applied to the issues under discussion in the chapter.

Some of the sections are really well written, but lack evidence of research – particularly in drawing from any peer-reviewed material, which is essential to helping establish a written argument. The whole section on “Forms of self-representation” for example, has large chucks of text that contain no reference to this kind of material (although, to be fair, there are some interwiki links apparent). Again drawing from this section as an example, there could have been more use made of interwiki links to other chapters.

This could have benefitted the chapter enormously. Such interwiki links could have been extended to include more reference to other chapters in the book, such as connecting your subsection on “distrust of AI” and “newspapers facing decline” to the chapters on Online/real-life divide and news, evidence and memory respectively. This could also be useful in relation to interwiki links on the same chapter: for example, the whole section on blog/online diaries – I would have thought this would follow on quite neatly from the discussion of Jill Walker Rettberg’s work, particularly in relation to her book Blogging! (This section didn’t have a single link or reference, and where the relevance to concepts in this chapter may be considered self-evident to the author, it is the author’s job to connect these ideas through argumentation).

Later sections (including the material on dating sites, gaming and video) are much stronger in this regard, and do all of the necessary things outlined above that are missing from other sections.

Overall, reasonably well put together, especially considering the number of total students working on the chapter.

Good. 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.

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

Outstanding. Among other things, these entries will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. They will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. They will address the assignment tasks in a thoughtful way. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts. They will be informed by serious reading and reflection, are likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.

In addition to the criteria for 70%+, entries at this standard demonstrate outstanding critical understanding of the exercise and are able to produce sophisticated lines of argument, and is highly original.

• Reading and research:
  • evidence of critical engagement with set materials, featuring outstanding and highly original command of a considerable range of relevant materials and analyses
  • evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material to a considerable degree
• Argument and analysis:
  • well-articulated and well-supported argument featuring discriminating command of a considerable range of relevant materials and analyses to an outstanding degree
  • evidence of critical independent and highly original thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position);
  • exceptional evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections);
  • considerable evidence of independent critical ability

• Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content of an exemplary quality (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
• Excellent levels of engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
• Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of discussion pages using deployment of considered judgement relating to key issues, concepts and procedures