Murphy,+Tom

toc 1.) I think that this online learning community is just like Wikipedia but based on a small community and touches main on issues covered in CCT300. It is relatively simple to use and learning the controls is not a difficult task. I think that some sourcing is definitely required but when a subject comes natural to you, sometimes it is not necessary. For example, I edited the page on Brutal Death Metal. All those facts came from my own head, however they are relatively consistent with Wikipedia’s version. Which is the same as countless other versions out there. I guess I will just go back and edit it a little bit while finding a source other than Wikipedia that will confirm the credibility of my article in the exact same way Wikipedia, kind of does. My feelings are just that some things you learn from a great number of sources and produce your own conclusions. I think this is more valid than relying on reading some Wiki article for a minute and a half and then citing it. oh well class is over edit this later. That is enough of my little Wiki rant. My expectations are that I will continue to contribute on here through more than just my own page. I plan on editing work as well as making additions to other people's work in a positive manner. This Wiki can go really well if everybody applies themselves and wants it to go far. I have never used Wiki before except for Wikipedia and even then I only read it. I don’t contribute anything to it. I can contribute my own ideas, thoughts and time to this space. It is not difficult, but it does require time and thought.

2.) In order to choose a posting to contribute or change, I look for one that I would find interesting. The topic makes the difference to me on whether or not I would change or alter any given text on that posting. I need to work harder on contributing to the Wiki in a number of different ways. I read a lot of postings but I feel a little awkward on changing any of them. I do not care if someone were to alter my page at all; in fact I encourage it. But I feel as though someone could get upset at the fact that somebody else edited his or her work - even if it was for the better. As an English major, I should step up and provide more corrections for incorrect grammar or any other small mistake that the author could easily overlook. I think it is difficult to set aside time to edit and contribute to the Wiki when there is always something to do in terms of not only the culture jamming project for this class but the various essays and projects other classes keep students occupied with as well. The Wiki may seem small in nature, but requires a great deal of time and effort spent on corrections and alterations. To get a good mark in a project like this, a person must not treat it as though it was nothing more than some message board. The student must try to engage the Wiki as a whole new entity - one that is more time-consuming than originally thought.

I do not believe that anybody has altered any of my work. I wish someone were to add something. The information may not be very easy to find but with some effort, even looking on various message boards, a person could find something to contribute. It would be great if someone could share his or her knowledge on any particular aspect of my work. That is what a Wiki is for, taking the information of individuals and organizing them in to categories so that as a whole, the information is not only easily accessible but relevant, useful and robust as well.

UPDATE: Finally, somebody edited my page. Well I looked and two people actually edited my page. The layout was improved dramatically. Some of these people are really good at what they are doing. I have a small complaint though, because this is such a genre-specific assignment, i chose "brutal" death metal. And the editor made a number of errors. Number one: They attached the bands under one unifying "mainstream" category which makes little sense. Cannibal Corpse, Cryptopsy and Deicide are the only bands who have sold enough records to even come close to being considered mainstream. The worst error was putting in some Myspace "Technical" Death Metal band under "Independent" bands when the page has nothing to do with "Technical" Death Metal at all. Another major slip was putting all the record companies under "Mainstream" record companies and then creating a new heading titled, "Independent". All those record companies were independent and should have been placed there. Everyone is more than welcome to contribute to the page, but they should research and cite if they are not sure about particular aspects of whatever subject they are contributing to.

Contributions - brief listing
1. Main contribution on Brutal Death Metal - Oct. 6 2. Began additions in the Cyberpunk article - Nov. 20 3. Added section of Technical Death Metal in Progressive music page - Nov. 23 4. Contributed through minor additions and editing of multiple pages such as nu-metal - Nov. 23 5. Added figures/statistics and resources on to __Prophet Mohammad Cartoons__ page - Nov. 23 6. Created Adult Swim page in the cartoon section including links and examples/resources - Nov. 23

3. The Wiki Assignment seemed to be overwhelming at first. But when everybody got involved and things started moving, it became more accessible. The community really came together and continued to build on top of itself. There are a great deal of advantages involved with the use of Wikis in the classroom. It provides organization for an enormous amount of content that could not be done as well using another method. Wiki works really well as long as marks are attached to the creation and continued additions of the pages. The only draw back is that there is a lack of privacy when compared with WebCT. Because students in WebCT log in to their own private account that enables marks to be posted online. Contrastingly, the Wiki is much more public and the posting of grades on it would be against the new code adopted by UTM. I found the Wiki to be excellent as a resource to mesh ideas together during the group project of culture jamming and it is almost a for of web design at the same time. Limitations i found were people writing over work. I had my cyberpunk stuff written over but it was for the better. The fact that anyone can go back and retrieve data created months ago is also really cool. The only limit is that you might not notice when your work is defaced - if that ever might happen. But then again you can have an email sent to you whenever a page is altered. The Wiki helped me learn a bit too. In order to get part of the 10% mark a person had to edit pages and contribute to the learning as a group. With that, the content you read had to make sense in your head and i had to think about it while i was reading it. I found that this is a pretty good way to study and I remember a lot about the many pages i altered. Even a test on some of the content could be a good idea because then it would show that a person did their editing and reading on the Wiki. Though the question wording would have to be along the lines of: "Name 3 pages in the Wiki and relate them to McLuhan's tetrad (excluding your own Wiki) Something along those lines would benefit those who started editing and helping out before the final test. And id would rule out those people who just add in the "t-o-c" command that makes a big difference visually, and took me so long to figure out. For suggestions, I found the culture jam assignment to be a little ambiguous. But the constant updates you forced students to do was a really good idea. Because it fully is a project that a group cannot do the weekend before the due-date and requires a lot of planning and especially change. Ideas morph in to new ideas. I think maybe a class participation mark might be a good idea and reward students that attend class. But it was a fair class and instructed well with a lot of ideas from students. And after all, I started to like the idea of Wikis.