!%*””!#*! – Orla Breslin

The only title I could think of in relation to my saga of getting my video uploaded. I have learned some valuable lessons in video file types, format, bit rate, etc.

 

In my video essay, I am exploring my role as I unconsciously edit in my arts practice, and edit my community practise. I am very interested in the process, the difference between arts practice, and other work. The experience of editing a Wikipedia page, has made me not just appreciate but be excited by the concept of open participatory projects. I discuss boundaries between writers and readers, and the emerging sub-culture such as DIY citizens. I mention 2 books that have influenced the way I think about modern culture, open source and social interaction. These books are part of research for my thesis. Also, I had to mention my research (yes, obsession) on textiles, and lace in particular. I’m quite excited to start thinking about my digital artefact, and the possibilities of combining digital and text/textiles. For me it was more of an exploration of digital software and possibilities, visually editing, to try and evoke, different tempos, mood, etc. Graphics, whether in print or on screen is an area I am interested in. The frame of a painting can make or break a piece, the visual frame of a digital project, can also make or break it. I used this opportunity to explore visual essays as a medium, and the tools needed: a range of digital software from photoshop to wondershare editing software, voice recording, and archive footage that was free to use. Creating and editing visual graphics so they were in context with my spoken word was difficult, producing long slow images, and then faster, more surprising graphics, as I went from talking about my arts practice to digital editing. I created some digital collages in photoshop, to create an overall impression, a visual text. It was interesting to see how delayed or overlapped still images can be made to appear animated. I enjoyed the process, and see it as a starting point of gathering information, tools, techniques, and more importantly, software I like to work with, to ultimately work towards my thesis and digital artefact.

Orla Breslin 07/12/2015 www.fitefuaite.com

 

Advertisements

Wikipedia Editing-Mrinal Chadha

EDITING IN  WIKIPEDIA

Editing in Wikipedia has been a very unique experience for me. For editing any Wikipedia article, I only had to create an account with Wikipedia which I did. Once done with creating an account, I searched through various Wikipedia articles of my interest.  One of them was Healthcare in India. As I was reading it, I found that under the section health care system, there was mention of only the word “Catastrophic Health Expenditure” which is so prevalent in India. I decided to add this piece of information while editing a few things which I found were not explained properly. These can be easily seen in highlighted text of before and after screenshots. As a researcher while adding and editing, I referenced the content properly from a journal article.

BEFORE SCREENSHOT

Before

 

AFTER SCREENSHOT

AFTER

However, the things that surprised me most was this that if I can edit this article with just creating an account, then anyone else can too do the same irrespective of the qualifications of that person. I am pursuing PhD but even a Junior Certificate student can also change the content there with no one there to stop him from doing this. With this in mind, I looked for ways if such a person who holds no qualifications in the subject area can be stopped, I could not find a solution to this. There is no way he/she can be stopped, I concluded!!!

This brings me to pop up the question, is the content on Wikipedia even 1% valid? Does it have any authenticity at all? The answer is “may be”. It perhaps just depends upon your stroke of luck. If you are reading an article, edited by an expert in field, you are getting right information. If it is being edited just by a random person, you are reading something which has nothing to support it.

The important thing which I learnt was this that while reading any article on Wikipedia, I must see from where it is referenced. What I found as I was reading was there were articles which were referenced to some news reports, blogs, websites which make the content on Wikipedia really suspicious for academicians as if you are writing a blog, it is your view, and it can’t be generalized. Similarly, if in a newspaper article, someone writes, Indian Health care sector is progressing very slowly, it is writer’s view, it may or may not be the fact. As an Economist, I would be very cautious about references from blogs, newspaper articles etc.   I would accept the content as genuine only if it is coming from a journal article or proper research study.

For these reasons only, I believe accessing peer reviewed articles/ research papers which are available through various open access sources can provide a lot better and authenticated content than open websites which can be edited by anyone. I believe if Wikipedia can somehow incorporate that only people who hold a particular qualification can only edit a piece of information, it would be hugely beneficial for everyone. This would indeed require resources on part of Wikipedia to check and verify qualifications of the editors.

 

Video Essay- Mrinal Chadha

Abstract

 

The role of Editor in Economics has changed drastically over the years with the coming up of so called ‘digital age’. The editor is no more just the editor. A reader, an author, a publisher could also be an editor. The medium of publication has also changed significantly with online publication dominating over hard copy publication. This indeed comes with both pros and cons. The advantages are the fact that it has made editing a lot easier, however, it has also led to the possibility of plagiarism with an opportunity for anyone to imitate your work. Collaborative writing with other researchers and authors is very common in Economics or in any other field. However, collaborative open access writing is something that is highly uncommon for Economists because of authenticity of the content of the new writers and risk of research ideas being imitated. Digital skills have had a significant impact on editing. However, websites like Wikipedia which can be edited by anyone should be viewed with caution because anyone can edit information in there depending upon their views/ideas. Hence, to make it authentic for readers, editors should always reference the material from credible sources like journal articles, research studies etc.

Video Essay Bláthnaid King

Abstract

In this video, I talk about the role of the editor and editing process in the context of social media. The central issues that I focus on include: the impact of social media on editing, how the role of the editor has changed in the rapidly developing digital landscape of Web 2.0, and finally, I will discuss how research dissemination takes place on social media.

In order to address these issues, I construct theoretical definitions of what ‘editing’ and who the ‘editor’ is in the context of social media. From here, I then propose the different ways in which these definitions have changed from our classical conceptions and definitions. Finally, I look at the dissemination of information on social media and explore positive and negative implications of these new, non-traditional forms of research dissemination.

The importance of exploring the role of the editor and issues which are connected to it encourage us to think considerately about the digital activities that we may take part in. Additionally, understanding these issues allows us to think broadly about how we present ourselves online and what constitutes our virtual identities.

How social media will continue to change, develop and impact upon the role of the editor is not only interesting, but clearly very relevant to the times we live in today too.


References

“#RefugeesWelcome – Social Media’s Massive Response to Humanitarian Crisis.”Social Songbird. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Dec. 2015.

“Amalia’s Instagram (@amaliaulman), Instagram Photos and Videos.” N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Dec. 2015.

“Amalia Ulman on the Insta-Scam of the Century.”Dazed. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2015.

erik. “Blog.reddit — What’s New on Reddit: Reflections on the Recent Boston Crisis.” N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Dec. 2015.

Hogan, Bernie. “The Presentation of Self in the Age of Social Media: Distinguishing Performances and Exhibitions Online.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 30.6 (2010): 377–386. Web. 3 Dec. 2015.

Holmes, Julia. “Copy Editors Are the Proletariat of the Publishing World.” New Republic. N.p., 3 2015. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

Ingram, Mathew. “Of Bitcoin and Doxxing: Is Revealing Satoshi Nakamoto’s Identity Okay Because It Was Newsweek and Not Reddit?” N.p., 6 Mar. 2014. Web. 3 Dec. 2015.

Kaligotla, Chaitanya, and Charles D. Galunic. “The Spread of False Ideas through Social Media.”Academy of Management Proceedings 2015.1 (2015): 14564. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.

Kietzmann, Jan H. et al. “Social Media? Get Serious! Understanding the Functional Building Blocks of Social Media.” Business Horizons 54.3 (2011): 241–251. Web. 25 Nov. 2015. SPECIAL ISSUE: SOCIAL MEDIA.

Pfeffer, J., T. Zorbach, and K. M. Carley. “Understanding Online Firestorms: Negative Word-of-Mouth Dynamics in Social Media Networks.”Journal of Marketing Communications 20.1-2 (2014): 117–128. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.

Russell Spears, Tom Postmes. “Group Identity, Social Influence and Collective Action Online: Extensions and Applications of the SIDE Model.” (2013): xx–xx. Print.

Smith, Chris, November 30, and 2013Internet. “Dealing with Disaster: How Social Media Is Helping Save the World.” TechRadar. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.

 

 

 

Wikipedia Entry by Bláthnaid King

Introduction

My experience writing and editing a Wikipedia entry proved to be both interesting and useful. For this assignment, I focused on editing an entry on the term ‘doxing’. My reason for choosing this particular entry was that it directly relates to my chosen research interests, being that of mass negative reaction and the recipient on social media. As a great part of my research for this topic entails learning about the reasons for negative mass reaction and about the types of negative online behaviour that people engage in when participating in mass reaction, it seemed natural to edit and research this particular entry for this assignment.

According to the Wikipedia entry, (at the time of writing), doxing is defined as “the Internet-based practice of researching and broadcasting personally identifiable information about an individual.”[1] From reading the entry at the time of this assignment, I found that while it provided a satisfactory definition of what doxing is, it lacked a more rounded perspective, particularly in regards to the motivations for doxing, the common techniques a hacker may use in doxing, and the ethics concerning doxing in journalism.

Considering the purpose of this entry was to inform the reader in an unbiased manner of the topic at hand, I focused on clarifying and expanding upon the already available information. Keeping in mind that the audience of this article may not belong to any particular demographic, I felt it necessary that my addition to this entry aid in providing a comprehensive resource of information for a range of potential audiences.

[1] See: Wikipedia, Doxing, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing, accessed on 30/11/15

Part 1: Getting Started

Having no prior experience editing or writing in Wikipedia, I began the process by following the directions outlined in the Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia post on the PLOS website.[1] Firstly, I set up an account on the website, where I was then prompted to edit an article that was currently in need of minor work. The article in question was on Irish television network TV3.[2] I used this as an opportunity to acquaint myself with Wiki Markup Language and the elements of HTML used in writing and editing Wikipedia entries. I started simply by adding some spacing between words, as you can see in figure 1:

wiki test 1

Figure 1 displays the before and after screenshots of the spacing between words School Run, Diary of…, and Modern Ireland.

Wiki Markup was remarkably user friendly, and, as a result, I was confident enough to proceed with editing the doxing entry, after spending a short amount of time reading the lines of text and code in the sandbox.

[1] See: Logan DW, Sandal M, Gardner PP, Manske M, Bateman A (2010) Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia, PLoS Comput Biol 6(9): e1000941. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000941, accessed on 30/11/15
[2] Wikipedia, TV3, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV3_(Ireland), accessed on 30/11/15

Part 2: Editing

While the importance of clear and valid citations and referencing on Wikipedia is instrumental to how it functions and remains a source of information online, I found that this was one of the most difficult factors which impacted upon the editing process.

Due to copyright issues[1], I was unable to use many of the sources that I had previously obtained in my dissertation research. This, forced me to search for other digital sources that Wikipedia would approve.

While the availability of open content coupled with the stringency of rules in place for valid citations is essential for ensuring that content is reliable, it also makes providing additional information on newer content significantly more difficult. As the term ‘doxing’ is relatively new, there were few available sources online that were useful to add to this entry. This, in turn, lead in making only minor changes to the entry.

wikidox before

Figure 2 displays the Common Techniques section prior to any editing

doxxingwikiafter3

Figure 3 displays the Common Techniques section after editing. (edited sections surrounded by green box)

journalistsdoxxingbefore

Figure 4 displays the Journalist section prior to editing

journalistdoxxingafter

Figure 5 displays the Journalist section after editing, (edited sections surrounded by green box)

doxxingbefore

Figure 6 displays the doxing entry prior to editing

doxingafter

Figure 7 displays the doxing entry post editing, (edited sections surrounded by green box)

As seen from figures 2 – 7, I was able to expand on the topic considerably by adding some clearly referenced information. Expanding upon the areas of this entry that needed work allowed me to create a comprehensive resource of information for any user who may search this entry.

[1] See: Logan DW, Sandal M, Gardner PP, Manske M, Bateman A (2010), Rule 5: Do Not Infringe On Copyright, Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia. PLoS Comput Biol 6(9): e1000941. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000941, accessed on 30/11/15

Conclusions

I found the role of copy editor central to the editing experience, as I consistently revised and re-edited errors in grammar, vocabulary and referencing. At times, I felt the system of referencing and citation to be flawed as I outlined in Part 2. This was in relation to the difficulties I encountered concerning copyright, and in relation to clicking referenced URLs which unfortunately linked to unavailable websites.

However, what I found most exciting in my experience of editing and contributing to content in Wikipedia, was its user-friendly nature. The comprehensible style of Wiki Markup and HTML allows users from a wide variety of backgrounds and a range of different knowledge levels to edit and contribute as they please. The application of this style of coding language could allow for interesting results in other digital avenues or platforms.


 

References

Boyd, Danah, Truth, Lies, And ‘Doxxing’: The Real Moral Of The Gawker/Reddit Story, http://www.wired.com/2012/10/truth-lies-doxxing-internet-vigilanteism/, Wired, accessed on 30/11/15

Holmes, Julia. “Copy Editors Are the Proletariat of the Publishing World.” New Republic. N.p., 3 2015. https://newrepublic.com/article/121182/between-you-me-confessions-comma-queen-mary-norris-review, accessed on 20/10/15

Honan, Mat, What Is Doxing?, http://www.wired.com/2014/03/doxing/, Wired, accessed on 30/11/15

Ingram, Mathew, Of Bitcoin and doxxing: Is revealing Satoshi Nakamoto’s identity okay because it was Newsweek and not Reddit?, https://gigaom.com/2014/03/06/of-bitcoin-and-doxxing-is-revealing-sakamotos-identity-okay-because-it-was-newsweek-and-not-reddit/, accessed on 30/11/15

Ramesh, Srikanth, What is Doxing and How it is Done? http://www.gohacking.com/what-is-doxing-and-how-it-is-done/, accessed on 30/11/15

Reinhardt, Damion, Rethinking The Ethics Of Doxing, http://www.skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/2014/12/14/rethinking-the-ethics-of-doxing/, accessed on 30/11/15

Logan DW, Sandal M, Gardner PP, Manske M, Bateman A (2010) Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia. PLoS Comput Biol 6(9): e1000941. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000941

Panda, Nutan, Doxing: The Dark Side of Reconnaissance, http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/doxing-the-dark-side-of-reconnaissance/, accessed on 30/11/15

Price, Kenneth M., Electronic Scholarly Editions, http://www.digitalhumanities.org/companion/view?docId=blackwell/9781405148641/9781405148641.xml&chunk.id=ss1-6-5&toc.depth=1&toc.id=ss1-6-5&brand=9781405148641_brand, accessed on 30/11/15

Tognotti, Chris, What is “Doxxing” And “Swatting”? You Should Know These Terms & Their Victims, http://www.bustle.com/articles/64275-what-is-doxxing-and-swatting-you-should-know-these-terms-their-victims, Bustle, accessed on 30/11/15

Newsweek, Bitcoin and the ethics of ‘doxxing’, http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/the-stream/the-stream-officialblog/2014/3/7/newsweek-bitcoinandtheethicsofdoxxing.html, accessed on 30/11/15

Guide to doxing: Tracking identities across the web, https://blog.blechschmidt.saarland/doxing/, https://blog.blechschmidt.saarland/doxing/, Blog Blechschmidt.Saarland, accessed on 30/11/15

Wikipedia by Michele OCC

After playing around in wikipedia for a while not sure of what I was doing or what topic to choose I eventually searched for Collaborative Art Practice because it relates to my art practice and interest and possibly to my dissertation. The only result for that term in wikipedia was for ‘Social practice (art) so I opened that and searched within the page for collaborative art practice and with no results for that got an offer to create the page collaborative art practice with a recommendation to consider the results shown below on the current page. So I decided to try to create a page ‘Collaborative Art Practice’ at that stage wiki suggested I use the sandbox area so I opened it to create my first article.

There I found many suggestions as to how to proceed and I have screen grabbed this page as my middle page unsure as to whether or not I will be allowed to publish within the time frame this assignment is due.

2. before edit.png

Wiki suggests reading ‘your first article’ link from their wiki suggests using the shared or personal sandbox. Key words in the article:

Should be notable.

Good references

Independent sources

Respect copyright

Avoid defamatory content

Feel free to be bold

Beware editors might choose to delete your article.

Recommendation, go to Wikipedia: Article wizard where they offer lots of help from other wikipedians at wikipedia teahouse or help also suggest Wikipedia Adventure and learn how to edit in an hour or have a brief tutorial.

I opened my sandbox and put in my heading and wrote my first article (short paragraph) including and cited it. I then sent it as per instructions for review. Waiting to see what happens.

The interesting thing about this exercise is that I really had no interest initially in engaging with this process, having gone this far I am now interested to see what comes of my short contribution and whether or not it might grow legs as I can see the need for such a page or reference to collaborative practice in wikipedia and would be happy to become a regular contributor.

My First article:

The nature of collaboration rather than singular authorship is the case with many art projects in the postmodern phase of art making today. ‘If oneness in art-works inevitably implies the use of force against the many phrases like “mastery over materials” in aesthetical criticism betrays this state of affairs-then it follows that the many must also fear oneness. T.W. ADORNO, AESTHETIC THEORY.(ref.1.)

Grant Kester study into contemporary collaborative art begins by putting into question why so many artists have been drawn to collaborative modes of practice. This he suggests is a global phenomenon and can be experienced over the last decade in our biennales of Europe to the local villages of central India and new high tech media centers to small community art programs. While the term collaborative appears straightforward enough in itself “to work together” it deserves much further investigation and research if this global phenomenon is to be understood.(ref.2)

 

 

(ref.1)Adorno, Theodor W. Aesthetic Theory. A&C Black, 1997. Print.

(ref.2)Grant H, Kesters book THE ONE and THE MANY, Contemporary Collaborative Art in a Global Context

 

3. Collaborative at practice.png

Page submitted for review

 

 

Gillian Lattimores Video Essay – The Role of Editor in Digital Heritage

 

In this video essay, I focus on the role of the editor in relation to digital heritage,as it is the area within the digital humanities that I am most passionate about. I look at two aspects in this regard: hypertext and digital scholarly editing. I briefly define digital cultural heritage and move on to discuss aspects of hypertext such as hyper-editing and hyper-archives like the Rossetti Archive, and the role of the editor in this context.
I move on to take a very brief look at the role of the traditional scholarly editing, and then discuss new forms of digital scholarly editing such as peer-to-peer and post publication review. The discussion then focuses on crowdsourcing as a form of digital scholarly editing. Within the video essay I refer to the arguments of several digital humaities scholars and mention webiste examples, all of which are listed below.

References

Cohen, D. (2010): Open Access Publishing and Scholarly Values
http://www.dancohen.org/2010/05/27/open-access-publishing-and-scholarly-values/
[06/12/2015]

Fitzpatrick, K. (2012): Beyond Metrics: Community Authorization and Open Peer Review in Debates in the Digital Humanities, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.

Fyfe, P. (2012): Electronic Errata: Digital Publishing, Open Review and the Futures of Correction, in Debates in the Digital Humanities, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
http://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates/text/4 [29/11/2015]

McGann, J. 2012. The Rationale of Hypertext
http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/public/jjm2f/rationale.html [06/12/2015]

Media-commons.2015.Media-commons press, Welcome http://mcpress.media-commons.org/ [06/12/2015]

Rossetti Archive.2015.
http://www.rossettiarchive.org/ [06/12/2015]

Scalar.2015. The Alliance for Networking Visual Culture, About Scalar http://scalar.usc.edu/scalar/features/ [Accessed 06/12/2015]

Text Coding Initiative.2015.
http://www.tei-c.org/About/ [06/12/2015]