Module 4: What Surprised Me

I think it is fair to assume that everyone this week truly believes that the innovations and constant changes in technology are an asset. kkuhl2013 says “that 
It is truly amazing what one can do with a computer from the comfort of their own home”! lifeofascanner says “I too love online shopping and probably do it more than I should, the past week I have bought two pairs of shoes and was very excited when they arrived 4 days later (very fast compared to others)”. I love your style ladies! I find that I do not use the internet enough for shopping purposes. I agree with the consenses that the changes in technology allow for great convenience and for time-savings. However I was surprised and interest by Alensaric’s comments on online shopping. I believe my identity of a Canadian makes me extremely trusting and that can be a drawback for me when it comes to online shopping. I was a little surprised to hear that some people hate to pay for shipping and handling. As a customer I understand why one would not want to pay for shipping and handling but as a business student I also understand the costs of doing business online. There is always a cost associated with everything, online shopping is no different. The costs that comes with convience develops the economy and increases services that we may not use as much. For example the cost of sending a package, infuses mail services which is a service that we as a society has cut out. There is also a cost benefit analysis that the consumer needs to take into consideration. The costs associated with driving to a mail, paying for parking is just two costs associated with going to purchase an idem at a store. If the these costs are lower then the costs of shipping and handling then the decision is clear.


I love Little Fish’s comment “New media and technology really make shopping easier than before, which make me spend my money even easier”. I agree 100% and of course from a business prospective convience = success. Business want purchases to be as easy as possible as consumers will be more likely to purchase more if it is easy to do so. I also found “People have to give up something in order to gain something. Its like you will lose your privacy when you share a picture with your family members, but you can enjoy the picture from them. Hence, we are all producer and consumer on the internet’ very interesting. I appreciate the business prospective that Little Fish gave. In conclusion I will end this post by reposting kkuhl2013 comments. “The readings this week point out how economies and political powers are engaged in online activity. The further I read the more difficult I found to see boundaries which was also noted in our readings. As I stated in the initial post “In other words, some individuals believe today’s society is too restricted and others believe our society isn’t restricted enough.” Truly subjective to the individual!”





Cultural Production & New Media

It’s true, you really can buy anything you want on the internet today. Everything from groceries to furniture, clothing to animals. In the past year I have consumers more then I have produced online. I have been a university student for four years now, and I try and stay away from a computer as much as possible. It feels like I am always on the computer for school work and it has honestly taken the fun out of consuming online. Before university I would go on the internet for personal pleasure, consuming music online, videos, interesting articles, and anything else I wanted to consume. However now I stick to researching information on my computer and producing scholarly assignments. My one guilty pleasure however is online shopping.  Today all you need is a computer and a credit card, than it is delivered to your door. However, there are several issues with online security that have been drought up in the reading this week. In the article “The cultural logic of Media Convergence” the author states that media convergence is more then simple a technological shift. Convergence alters the relationship between existing technologies, industries, markets, genres and audiences”(p.34). In other words the way we operate in everything we do is constantly changing with the rate or technology. Take for instance the simple technology changes that the social media website Facebook has had since it started. These changes have allowed for faster communication, and a vast increase in exposure. “Many phases of technological futurism in the US has been hailed as new economies. In seeking the explain the rise in productivity over this period” (Miller, 2004, p.56).


“Cultural shifts, the legal battles and the economic consolidations that are fueling media convergence are preceding shifts in the technological infrastructure” (H, Jenkins, 2004, p. 34).  In other words, some individuals believe today’s society is to restricted and others believe our society isn’t restricted enough. Again this can be seen in the case of Facebook, when some users want complete privacy and others wants complete openness.  


Facebook and other social media website are how I produce and consume on the internet. I also use other communication websites such as g-mail and in the past Hotmail and MSN. What encourages me to consume and produce on the internet are my friends, family members, and other people or organizations that I have liked on Facebook. On the other hand the main factor that inhibits my usage of the website is my image that I am projecting to the users of websites. I always want to project what I feel is the right image of myself to the world and therefore an over exposure or over usage of the site may inhibit that image.



Jenkins, H. (2004) The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence  International Journal of Cultural Studies March 2004 7: 33-43

Miller, T. (2004) A view from a fossil. International Journal Of Cultural Studies, 7(1), 55-65. 




Wikipedia: Op-Ed



Wikipedia “allows for collaboration on a mass scale, which is changing the institution of society”(Tapscott and Williams, 2006). Individuals come together to collaborate and share their knowledge, which is then given accessed by millions of users around the world. With easy access to the websites editing system comes a great deal of responsibility as well. In general, I have found the information on Wikipedia not 100% accurate. However when referring to my topic(Scottish Independence) and after reading what Wikipedia had displayed on the topic, I can say that it is very informative and greatly detailed. Even after reading the “talk” page on this topic, I was still convinced that the information given was thorough. However there were three main issues detailed on this page. One issue I took to was how national debt would be affected by Scotland becoming independent. This is a very important issue as it then addresses several other hot topics that the country is currently dealing with. These issues include “Would the Royal Scottish Bank become the controller of currency for Scotland? Were there any details on (presumed) mutual defense agreements, moving military assets from one to the other, would Scotland become a new nuclear power? Would you need a passport to travel to Scotland?” When in Scotland I was able to hear about these issues everyday on commercials, news reports, and other mass media outlets. This experience allowed me to hear this issues first hand from the local residents and how important these issues are to them. Without covering these issues Wikipedia has not accurately portrayed Scottish Independence ad the issues that surround the idea. Again the information given seemed to be accurate and was great at giving this history of the Scotland and the unions the country is currently in.


Without the key issues previously discussed, it further relays to the issues addressed in the article “Assessing Completeness of Information”. It gives us detailed discussion about how reliable Wikipedia is. As the authors stated “Wikipedia lets anyone create and edit content, which makes people doubt about the accuracy of the information “(Royal & Kapila, 2009). Little Fish reinforces the issue when stated “based on Wikipedia’s policy of free editing, we may not be able to city it’s source in professional paper directly”. The Encyclopedia Britannica, one of the world’s most authoritative encyclopedia, Jim (2005) found “But it is not the case that errors creep in on an occasional basis or that a couple of articles are poorly written. There are lots of articles in that condition. They need a good editor.”


Again Wikipedia plays a very important role in our society as we have seen in this week’s readings. However as already mentioned Wikipedia’s editing process allows users tochange information that has already been posted. Life as a Scanner brings up a great point “you can not truly telling if the information is true unless you go the extra mile and double check what is being posted”.  I believe that our society today has become lazier and wouldn’t necessarily take the time to double check all of the information received from the website.


Furthermore, I also agree with Alensaric’s comments on how to start looing for research material. : “My view of Wikipedia is simple: I think that it is an excellent source to gather preliminary knowledge about a topic. After gaining this preliminary knowledge, I would have a better idea of what to search in academic databases. I would also have a better idea of how to structure my own paper. Alensaric blog have very inspirational last words that I wish to use as mine as well.. “As a final word: Do not be afraid to use WIkipedia as a source of information, but be careful with what you accept as fact”.





Tapscott, D. and A.D. Williams (2006). Wikinomics. How Mass Collaboration Changes
Everything. New York: Penguin


Royal, C. & Kapila, D. (2009). What’s on Wikipedia, and What’s Not . . . ?: Assessing Completeness of Information. Social Science Computer Review. 27, 1. pp 138-148.


Giles. J. (2005). Special Report: Internet encyclopaedias go head to headNature. 438, pp 900-901.

Photo From:

Week 3: Reflection

After I read the comments on my blog this week, and reading our group members, blog posts, I have come to one conclusion. It is very evident on this weeks blogs that every member of our group was unable and advised against to use Wikipedia as a source of reliable research information. As well as being advised not to used the website, I think there also was some negative feeling towards the website. To be more specific, I believe the group felt a negative connotation or a negative stigma towards the website. It almost felt like before reading the articles people felt like they needed to stay away from the website. I think it was also accurate to conclude that the members of our group learned a lot about Wikipedia and how the editing process works. I do not think it’s fair however to say that everyone’s opinion changed about the website. Furthermore I do believe that it’s fair to say that the negative stigma is now gone from the group members as everyone is now informed about the processes that go on and can understand them.


Another theme in the responses this weeks and the blogs, is a drive to use Wikipedia for smaller, less important means to get information. Students can not reliable on Wikipedia as a academic resources and therefore now feel the ability to use the website for non academic information. An example of this is for information such as a population of a town or city. This isn’t something that is commonly changing and therefore can be trusted.


Before reading this weeks articles I was unaware of other website like Wikipedia. One example that is focused on in the articles is Britannica. After reading these articles I have concluded just like Little Fish that I do not have full confidence in both websites either. However I have to agree with Little Fish again when you state “Wikipedia should improve itself by paying more attention on the articles accuracy and Britannica should refund the money to it’s customers”. I believe that if a Website is asking for money in order to get the information from it, the information provided then should be accurate. Giving money for information gives an expectation that the information should be accurate. How this has gone on for so long without customer complaints is out of my understanding.


Again Wikipedia can be a reflection of the effects on our society and culture like Alenasaric says. I completely agree with the comments made by kk. Kk accurately describes the process that Wikipedia goes through in order to establish their “loosely” structured set of rules for entering data. In conclusion this week’s readings on Wikipedia was very informative. I can accurately say that I learned the editing processes and the background of the website. I can now understand why the information is not necessarily accurate and why I am not allowed to use it for an academic resource. I also believe that with time, Wikipedia will develop the tools in order to become better and improve the overall experience of the website just like Alenasaric says. 

Module 3: Wikipedia




Wikipedia: Logo



How much confidence did you have in the Wikipedia as a source of reliable information before reading the articles for this module? Did you change/modify that opinion or not?

I have always been told that Wikipedia is not a creditable website for the uses of reliable information. I have never been able to used Wikipedia as a source for any assignments in my university career. My professors would discredit my work if I were to use Wikipedia as a course of information. After reading the articles, my opinion has not changed. However there was several things I was not aware about. Firstly, I learned that Wikipedia “has become the worlds dominant educational resource, with over 4 million articles in English” (Jensen R, 2012, p. 1165).  The site is ranks in the top ten internet sites in the world just below Facebook and search engine sites like Google” (Jensen R, 2012, p. 1165).  The article further explains that the authors tend to “ignore historiography and scholarly monographs articles” (Jensen R, 2012, p. 1165).  I now further understand why my professors would not allow me to use this website for research. The article Military History on the Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812, further changed my opinion on Wikipedia as it further explained who and how the articles are written. It also explains the “rules of the game that have spontaneously evolve on the electronic frontier” (Jensen R, 2012, p. 1166).

Nevertheless it is very evident while reading through these articles that Wikipedia “is fast becoming an important resource for news and for information” (Royal, C., and Kapila, D., 2009, 138). It is also evident while researching for information, as Wikipedia is generally the first major link on a search engine. My opinion was then backed up when reading the article, “What’s on Wikipedia, and What’s Not? Assessing Completeness of Information”. This when authors Cindy royal, and Deepina Kapila state “ Although improved search engines such as Google facilitate access of knowledge across the Web, users then others. Wikipedia is one such site.” (Royal, C., and Kapila, D., 2009, 138). The article further states that “the Wikipedia is often criticized for the creditability of its user- generated posts, but completeness of information on the site has not previously been assessed.  Although accuracy of information is important, that is not what this project is measuring” (Royal, C., and Kapila, D., 2009, 138). I am curious why the accuracy of information is not what the article is focusing.

My personal feeling aside, Wikipedia “allows for a collaboration on a mass scale, which is changing the institution of society” Tapscott and Williams, 2006: 10). The article, Wikinomics and its Discontents: a Critical Analysis of the Web 2.0 Business Manifestos, “promotes the combined cultural and economic significance of business models, both in terms of their rhetorical information as well as in terms of their impact on social and cultural theory”. Overall the website, has an overwhelming affect on today’s society and culture.


Jensen, R. (2012). Military History on the Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812. Journal of Military History. 76, 1. pp 1165-1182

Royal, C. & Kapila, D. (2009). What’s on Wikipedia, and What’s Not . . . ?: Assessing Completeness of Information. Social Science Computer Review. 27, 1. pp 138-148.

Brown, J. S. & P. Duguid. (1996). The Social Life of Documents. First Monday. 1, 1.

Tapscott, D. and A.D. Williams (2006). Wikinomics. How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. New York: Penguin.

Week Two “Online Privacy” Reflection

Reading the responses to my blog post on privacy policy was an overwhelmingly positive experience. I was very taken back by how positive the responses are, so thank you everyone. Looking back, the comments left seems to all agree with my initial comments on privacy policy. Reading the comments gave me the conclusion, that Facebook and other social media websites are a reflection of self. Therefore, it is very important to project the right image of yourself.  Like kkuhl2013 says I know exactly who am I am and I feel this is a quality that is very important. Especially when it come to a project of self on these social media website, where future employers are checking.  I completely agree with kkuhl2013 comment “too do not differentiate between the real me and the online me. I am who I am. Plus, I think it would take too much work to keep a dream life going as well as the real life!” I feel like it would be exhausting to constantly have to play the roles of a double life, be you, and then someone else online.


Another reason I feel it is important to truly know who you are, is too due with the issue that adanc2013 brought up. “The struggle as you said with what to post and what not to as a version of our own created privacy”, and “Thoughts and tangents we go on can sometimes result in “behavior’s we are not proud of, or we regret”. If you truly know yourself I don’t think that these issues would be present. I believe the struggle and confusion of your current thoughts and who you really are as a person will result in sort term thoughts and feelings. However in the morning one may regret having said those thoughts. I have made this mistake before several times and have come to realize that these comments are not necessary to be said and give off a perception of one’s self that may not be how you would want. One example I can give is a comment I made during the Toronto Maple Leafs, playoff game 7, “I hate Chara”. Chara in this case, is a player on the Boston Bruins, who is known to be a bully on the ice. I woke up the next morning and was very depended about the devastating lose, and regret writing that post.

Jamie Harris brings up a great point. “If someone who knows what they’re doing can’t, how can you expect people unfamiliar with computers to know how”? I definitely agree with idea, as I am not that great with computers, and am unfamiliar with all the different privacy setting Facebook and other social media websites have. For people like me, I think there should be an online seminar teaching users how to use these setting properly. These lessons could minimize the feeling of “millions of people have access to this information”. A problem agreed to by Business Girl. 

Online privacy

This week’s topic on online privacy is an interesting and very relevant issue. I am currently sitting in my room, on my computer, on Facebook, and other online social media sites. I have come to believe and agree with Sherry Turkle’s views on the “computer a second self”. I know personally there is little difference between the balance of my public and private like. I am a very open person, and I express myself in the same manner online or in public as I would in private. For example, as I was watching last night’s leafs game (May 13th 2013), I was commenting online similar comments to my friends as I did while I was at the restaurant watching the game. There are certain limits to what I will share however. These limits include no swearing, no vulgar images or suggestions. In an ideal world, I would have more limited to what I post to the public versus how I act in private. However I know myself, and being an open and opinionated person this will not occur. I currently have a Facebook account in which I post comments about how I am feeling, what I am doing, and where I am. I also have an Instagram account that allows uploading and cropping photos to share with my friends. I will release personal information on a whim, more specifically when I feel emotionally connected to an issue. Again for example, the Toronto Maple Leafs game on May 13th, I was constantly posting updates that were relevant to what was happening in the game. I am a huge hockey fan and a proud leafs fan, (even after a critical melt down). This information relates to the readings as the internet allows individuals to “link million of people together in new spaces that are changing the way we think, the nature of our sexuality, the form of our communities, our very identity” (Sherry Turkle, 1999, p. 642). In the essay, “Looking Toward Cyberspace: Beyond Grounded Sociology” Sherry Turkle outlines the key elements of online life and it’s impacts on identity: the creation and projection of constructed personae into virtual space” (Sherry Turkle, 1999, p. 642). It has been stated that “one’s body can be represented by one’s own textual description” (Sherry Turkle, 1999, p. 642). This meaning everything you put online define you. It is known that that joining certain online communities allows the users to have a sense of belonging, while defining to others that you are apart of a certain community.

Some social media activities such as Facebook, Myspace, Cyworld, and Bebo encourage the release of your personal information. Facebook constantly is asking you to update your page, for your personal information. If you do not fill out all your personal information. For instance, if you didn’t add where you work, it will ask you to complete your profile by adding your work place. I find this incredible annoying, and have updated my profile with additional personal information just for it to stop asking me the information. Knowing that millions of people have access to this information you are providing them with makes one constantly reviewing what you have put out there. It is so critical in today’s economy that one put out their best face. Employer’s have access to your social media pages and allows them to seeing a different side of you, in order to make employment decisions.


I have  found while reading through the three readings, overlapping themes and thus an overlap in the information given. I have taken information from all three reading but only sighted one of them as the information was given in all the articles, and some was just common knowledge.



Albrechtslund, A. (2008. Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveilance. First Monday, 13(3), 1-6. Retrieved May 13, 2013, from

Lillie, B. (2012, March 1). Places we don’t want to go: Sherry Turkle at TED2012. TED Blog, 1-3. Retrieved May 13, 2013, from

Turkle, S. (2012, April 21). The Flight From Conversation. The New York Times: Sunday Review. Retrieved May 13, 2013, from

Image representing Facebook as depicted in Cru...

Image via CrunchBase