Author: Dpadejski

This weeks learning materials was eye opening to say the least. I guess the fact that I have heard about such topics as copyright, defamation, net neutrality, censorship etc. but didn’t think too much of it until this module goes to show how much I choose to actually research and learn more about vs. other topics in my day to day life.

A particular statement mentioned in our Mediactive textbook, “As the Electronic Frontier Foundation says, “New technologies are radically advancing our freedoms, but they are also enabling unparalleled invasions of privacy.”  This exact phrase describes perfectly what is affecting our privacy in media now and only will continue to do so, technology. The more advanced and broad technology gets within our digital media world, the more the law can possibly have control, but also means all of us need to stay informed frequently.

An important fact that I learned of myself and how I view law and the media in this module, was through our module conversation, we had a topic question of choice that mentioned have we read privacy policies and terms from our social media and other technology. I answered no, because its true, typically there is too much to read, big words that are not understandable and I would always think that those rules and regulations perhaps were created for those that don’t like to follow “the rules”. Now, I actually want to go and try to read what I am actually agreeing to on the net and in a day to day basis of the technology I invest my time in.

As learned in this module, we often think that the word private means secret, but in reality it only means that something isn’t actually public as the Medium article mentioned. Its important that I get to choose what privacy essentials are important to me as an individual, and well, we are all different. The government seems to think that we are all the same in the sense of what should or shouldn’t be private to a whole population. However, as Medium also mentions, we should be able to choose so that we can fight for the type of privacy’s we want and need.

Fact of the matter, currently I feel there is minimal to no privacy for citizens in the media world, and it only seems to be taking a turn for the worse if action isn’t taken in a different direction. What is most complicated is if all this is truly driven by the government, how can we the citizens get to that level and fight for what we believe should be? I think that’s where people, including myself, get stuck and have no clue how to attempt to make changes where necessary. Although, we can start by learning in depth all our terms of use and privacy in media, along with truly learning media literacy, and perhaps those are steps to take in the media privacy challenge we are currently trying to diminish drastically.

Through this weeks learning tools, I also was surprised to find out that duckduckgo was even an actual thing. My first time using it was during this weeks module just to test it out, and I actually like what it is and how it works. I feel that the majority of invasion of our media and day to day privacy is due to web servers we use. If those servers remember majority of what we type, search, say, upload, delete, etc. then there is truly no privacy from the start. In the duckduckgo scenario, you at least can have peace of mind of no ads, no tracking or targeting of any sort. Sounds like a starting  solution to a real privacy problem that has barely just begun.

When I was in high school, my teachers were Wikipedia skeptics. We were often lectured about how it was unreliable because you can’t trust something anyone can edit.

Well, I guess I’m anyone now.

In the decade (plus) since high school, Wikipedia has become a valuable resource for me. While I visit the site regularly in search of information, I can’t say I’ve ever considered becoming an editor. If not for this class, I don’t think I would have.

While it often made me nervous, this experience was a positive one.

Training

My introduction to the Wikipedia editing process began with a series of training activities. As I started to discover more about how Wikipedia operates, I was intimidated. Wikipedia editors have their own language and practices. I felt a bit like an anthropologist going out into the field for participant observation. I wanted to be accepted into the community, but I had a lot to learn before I could get to that point.

The training activities that involved actual practice were the ones I found most helpful. Practicing drafting in my sandbox and leaving messages on talk pages made it easier when it came time to do those things for real.

Choosing an Article

After I got the hang of the basics, it was time to choose an article to edit. I quickly decided that I wanted to find something related to streaming television. That’s the topic I chose for my blog and it’s one I know a lot about. I also know that it’s regularly covered in reliable sources. Finding good, credible information would not be hard.

When I struggled to think of something specific, I turned to the Article Finder for inspiration. As soon as I saw binge-watching in the results,I knew that would be the one. It’s a topic I have a lot of personal experience with.

The article is listed as a Start-Class article, so it has plenty of room for improvement. Looking at the article itself, I noticed that a lot of the research and information referenced is a bit on the older side. I figured I would be able to add something more current.

Once that decision was made, I started to do some research. I remembered reading about how Hulu was introducing a new ad format for binge-watchers late last year and decided to build on that. I found some good information about the effects binge-watching has on advertising and thought I could turn that into a new section of the Wikipedia article.

Talk Page

Next, it was time to propose my plan to the other editors. This meant that a visit to the binge-watching talk page was in order. Again, I was intimidated by this. I felt good about my ideas, but I was afraid of rejection. People can be very mean online and I feared the worst. Thankfully, there hadn’t been any activity on the talk page in three years, so the odds of that happening were small. Still, I put this off for days.

Finally, with the deadline approaching, I put myself out there and asked for feedback the night before the assignment was due. That was not my smartest decision, but I blame it on nerves.

After that moment of courage, I went to bed. In the morning, I checked and found no responses. I waited until late in the afternoon to see if anyone would chime in. Then, assuming feedback wasn’t coming, I decided to go ahead and make my changes.

Drafting and Making Edits

So that I wouldn’t screw anything up, I started by drafting my planned additions in my sandbox. Overall, it went smoothly. I had to tinker with one of the citations because I kept getting an error message regarding the publication date, but I was able to figure it out.

I should note that while I was waiting for a response to my plans, I decided I would also add some new information to the existing section of the article the covers cultural impacts. That watching entire seasons of television in less than 24 hours has become the norm for a lot of people is worthy of note, I think.

Once I felt good about my draft, I started moving it over to the article. This ended up being much easier than I thought it would be. To be honest, I don’t know why I thought it would be hard. It’s really just copying and pasting.

First, I added the new section about binge-watching’s impact on advertising. It has multiple components–a new header, two paragraphs, and three new references–but I thought it would be fine to move it all at once. It was. I used the source editor and everything made it over intact.

Then, I added an edit summary. Looking back, I think my edit summaries might have been too vague. I should have been more descriptive.

Finally, I used the preview to make sure everything looked right and then I published the changes.

After taking a moment to bask in the glory of having made my first real edit, I repeated the process for my next edit.

It was just as easy the second time around.

I thought I should also include a screenshot of my additions to the References section. Numbers 18, 21, 22, and 23 are mine. I think I used a good mix of research and media coverage from reliable sources.

Endings and Beginnings

As I write this, my edits haven’t been changed or removed. We’ll have to see if that sticks. Either way, I like what I’ve contributed. At times, I had to push myself out of my comfort zone for this one, but I’m glad I did it.

While I went into this assignment assuming that stepping into the role of Wikipedia editor would be a one-time thing, there are more changes I’d like to make. The entire article needs a lot of work. As a newbie, I was hesitant to come in and overhaul it. I didn’t want to step on any toes. But now that I feel emboldened, I might just stick around.

Intimidated would be an understatement. Wikipedia is something I turn to when I am looking for answers from somebody who is smarter than me, not somewhere I go to spread my knowledge. I would be lying if I said my fear of getting reprimanded by more experienced users didn’t cause me to procrastinate a bit, but by the time I did finally make my addition to the world of Wiki I was feeling almost empowered.

I first began my Wikipedia journey by going through a few topics I am knowledgable on such as plant based eating and indoor gardening, and I found that I was bombarded with large amounts of expertly pieced together information. I was intimidated to take on editing an article that was so well established and thought out, so I decided to go a bit smaller for my contribution. I ended up searching my hometown Racine, Wisconsin to see if there was anything of importance that others have missed.

The section that immediately stuck out to me was the section discussing Racine’s prom – A prom that has been referred to as the worlds best prom, and has become an event that puts our city on the map. While the Wikipedia article covered how big Racine’s prom is and how well known it has become, there was no mention whatsoever of the special education prom that always follows it the day after, so I found my “in”.

Although I had plenty to say about the special education prom and even the idea to expand on which schools are listed as attendees, I decided to present my proposed edit as just the main basic facts about Racine’s special ed prom in addition to my reference link. I felt that if I jumped in and made too many proposed changes at once I increased my room for error, and did not want to take the chance of having all of my information rejected due to maybe one or two mistakes. After previewing my proposal about one hundred times and adjusting my formatting just as many, I finally decided to share my ideas with the community.

Adding if the reference link in particular was incredibly nerve wracking for me, as the way sources are linked on Wikipedia is incredibly specific. I studied the steps on how to add citations over and over again, and even attempted to directly copy the way another user added their’s, but I was still nervous that I did it incorrectly and that my information would be invalidated because of so.

Much to my surprise, my addition wasn’t immediately removed and no one came to chastise me for any mistakes. I hit publish, and the world did not blow up. The Racine Wikipedia page had last been edited about a week and a half prior to my proposed contribution, but it appeared that no one was jumping to either approve or deny my suggestion. It was actually rather refreshing to see that people weren’t jumping to disprove me or invalidate me, and that Wikipedia is not always such a cut-throat place.

Following the idea that “no news is good news”, I decided to take the initiative to edit the Racine, Wisconsin Wikipedia page to include information about the annual A Night To Remember special education prom. I stuck to just the barebones facts – Including when the prom takes place, when it began, and who can attend it. I felt both nervous and excited publishing my first addition, but most of all I felt confident that the information I shared is relevant and deserving of a place in this article.

While I am not sure if my edit will stay where it is, I am proud of all of the wonderful things that our city’s special education prom brings to our community and I am glad that I can shed some light on it. Even if my edit is eventually rejected or changed, I hope that mention of the special education prom remains on Racine’ Wikipedia in some shape or form.

Overall, I found contributing to Wikipedia to be a slightly intimidating experience. It was difficult to convince myself to jump into it, but once I began to familiarize myself with the tools and layout of the site I quickly became more confident in my abilities. I wish I would have maybe attacked this project a bit sooner in order to add even more to Racine’s wikipedia page, but just because this assignment is complete does not mean that my work on Wikipedia has to be. I look forward to continuing to learn more about how Wikipedia functions and how I can continue to be a part of it. Whether or not my addition will stay is something I am unsure of, but for the time being it is definitely a cool feeling to have my contributions published on my hometown’s Wikipedia page.

 

 

The law is a very tricky topic on how it should dictate the content on the internet and in the media. I believe with traditional media like movies, and television it’s a lot more cut and dry, but when it comes to the Internet that’s where its gets less black and white and pretty muddy. One rising issue is copyright enforcement. Now that the everyday person that has a cellphone with a camera is able to upload content to the Internet, there is a lot more room for copyright enforcement and copyright takedowns. Usually on these video sharing websites, like YouTube, you have copyright claims being run by a system that isn’t being filtered by a human being. With these systems being run this way it leaves room for more error.

If we look at the article by Cory Doctorow, he gives examples of this very thing occurring. A couple of these examples would be Nasa getting blocked from posting its own Mars rover footage, classical pianists are being blocked from posting their own performances, and entire academic conferences lose their presenters audio because the hall they rented played music at the lunch break. We also learn this from Mediactive that “if a site user posted the material, the site host can avoid legal trouble by complying with the takedown notice. If whoever posted it challenges the notice, saying the material is not infringing, the content goes back up, and the copyright holder is then required to litigate if he or she wants to force the issue”. (p135)

I believe that this issue also goes hand in hand with censorship. From Doctorow we also learn that “the companies usually do not take a stand to defend user speech, and many users are too afraid to stand up for their own speech because they face bankruptcy if a court disagrees with their assessment of the law” which censors users content from what they can and cannot post, knowing that they won’t contest it.

Another instance of censorship causing an issue was on YouTube last August. Five channels [GlitterBombTV QueerKidStuff, WattstheSafeword, ChaseRoss, and BriaAndChrissy] on the platform took a stand against being discriminated against for posting non-explicit LGBTQ+ content. The claim is that YouTube has been denying ads, removing or hiding videos with tags like “gay, transgender, or bisexual” even though these videos contain no mature content. Even though YouTube claims to abide by freedom of expression and freedom of opportunity, these five channels are suing because its effecting their revenue, viewership, and advertisement ability. With Bria and Chrissy being a plaintiff in the lawsuit, they are also claiming that their videos are not being sent to subscription boxes, thumbnails are being removed, and that they also are being age-gated and age-restricted, all for being a lesbian couple.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Technology, Media and the Law

Technology and media corporations have been increasingly trying to limit what consumers can do with their products. When you purchase a physical movie DVD, music compact disc (CD), or book, you have the option of loaning it to a friend or donating it to a secondhand store. The movie studios, music labels, and publishers have no way to recoup the money they would have made from the sale in a secondhand store or the money lost when your friend borrows the item rather than purchasing it for themselves. When you purchase any of these items digitally it is illegal to share or sell them to others. Nobody would call you a pirate for passing along a physical copy to a friend, but if you did the same thing with a digital copy you are breaking the law.

The same is true for hardware. Companies such as Keurig, who tried to add digital rights management (DRM) to its coffee pods to make it impossible to use pods from other vendors, had to backpedal this policy when it received backlash from consumers. If a product is too limited in scope it will have a short future. In addition, a product that does not catch on with enough consumers will fail (e.g., the Betamax). Part of innovation in technology is letting “hackers” find ways to make it work for their needs. I love my iPad, but it is not the best platform for certain things, such as editing and saving files. I will always need a computer as well as a tablet or smartphone because those devices have limited capabilities.

Another issue with hardware is lack of software updates on older devices. Users of older Sonos speaker systems were recently told that they would no longer receive software updates. Apple users have contended with this issue for years; I still have a first-generation iPad collecting dust because Apple no longer supports it. Computer users are familiar with the concept of operating systems becoming obsolete (Windows 7 is the most recent Microsoft casualty.)  Compatibility and security are the main concerns with operating systems. External devices behave like hardware but also contain software and are prone to these issues as well. I own an iWatch and will be sad when it reaches its end of life. I’m not sure I will purchase another because I don’t use it for much outside of checking time and the weather.

As the Internet of Things becomes more widespread, we will be encountering these issues more often. My parents owned a console television and stereo that lasted forever. They did not need to worry about software obsolescence or whether they could hook up auxiliary equipment legally. They also did not get to enjoy the wonders of wirelessly casting streaming movies or music to an entertainment system or answering the phone through a watch. We live in amazing times, which could be even more amazing if the companies who develop and sell the products would keep the users’ autonomy in mind.

 

 

Warning: Undefined array key "file" in /home/kristyro/public_html/wp-includes/media.php on line 1749

Warning: Undefined array key "file" in /home/kristyro/public_html/wp-includes/media.php on line 1749

Warning: Undefined array key "file" in /home/kristyro/public_html/wp-includes/media.php on line 1749

The Wikipedia article I decided to edit is Hull Zero Three, which is a novel by the science fiction author Greg Bear that was published in 2010. I first encountered the article after listening to the audiobook one night before bed. I wasn’t familiar with this book until I stumbled across the audiobook on YouTube. I had previously read several books by the author and enjoyed them, so I was excited to listen to this audiobook and find out what it was about.

Unfortunately, I fell asleep and lost my place. What I was able to hear was very confusing, so before deciding whether to start over I wanted to check Wikipedia to get an idea of the plot. The article was very short and mainly gave information about the critical response, which was mixed. I noticed that the article was lacking a proper plot synopsis, so I went in search of the information from other sources.

The article I found related to Hull Zero Three is a review by Gary K. Wolfe, published in November 2010 in Locus magazine (a trade magazine for science fiction, fantasy, and horror fiction.) The magazine publishes reviews and announcements for upcoming novels, magazines, and conventions. The article offers the plot synopsis (without any major spoilers) and seemed like the best reference for what I needed.

My first step was to post to the talk page of the Wikipedia article, describing my proposed edits and the source. I used the source editor to draft my message and let the other editors know my intention to edit the plot synopsis for this page.

I waited to see if I would get any replies on the Talk page. When I did not see any after two days, I posted the following plot synopsis for the novel:

I will wait again to see if my edits are deleted. My sense is that this page is not watched very closely anymore due to the topic and the age of the novel. It has been ten years since the novel was published and is not one of the author’s more popular works.

After posting my edit, I noticed that there was a message at the bottom of the page that says the article is a stub with a link to a page with guidelines on writing about novels on Wikipedia. I clicked on the link, and read through a manual of style for editing novel pages. I closely read the information about plot, which is the section I had added to the article.

What I read is that Wikipedia recommends 3-4 paragraphs to summarize the plot of a full-length novel. After reading the guidelines, however, I noticed that it also says this:

It also says that the novel itself is the primary source for the plot, unless there are explanatory details in which case you should use a secondary source. Armed with this new information, I set about rewriting my plot synopsis to add more detail including spoilers that I had avoided previously. Next, I returned to my article to apply the changes:

I decided to keep my secondary source as a reference because it really informed my original plot summary. I will now wait to see if I receive any feedback from other editors or if someone decides to delete what I have written.

After waiting 2 days to see if there was any feedback or if another editor deleted my edits, I saw that nothing was changed. My conclusion is that this article is not being monitored closely, and if any deletions or messages occur it will likely not be for a while. I have my account set to receive notifications for this page. If someone decides to delete the plot synopsis, I will ask for their feedback on what I wrote so that I can be better prepared if I decide to revise the article again.

Overall this was a very enjoyable assignment; I even bragged to a friend about getting the chance to edit Wikipedia. I found the training modules to be clear and simple and editing the actual article and talk pages was not complicated. The most difficult part was figuring out which article to edit since there are so many. What do I know a lot about? In general, I think I am expert in most things (not really) but when it came to really thinking about what I know well enough to actually contribute to a Wikipedia page, I felt like a newborn baby who doesn’t know anything. It was daunting to put my writing on a page that could be viewed by potentially hundreds or thousands of people. It gave me a deeper appreciation of Wikipedia editors who have written the articles that I have been reading for years.

During the weeks of the assignment, WIRED Magazine posted an article on Wikipedia:

Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet

I hope that this article inspires internet entrepreneurs to create more crowdsourced sites that focus on providing information rather than making a profit.

 

 

 

To actually try and solve “The Grandmother Problem” I decided to have a talk with my boyfriend. Really, I should’ve chosen my mom or dad, but I wanted a challenge.

My boyfriend believes everything he sees, no matter what. I’m a very passive person, so before now I haven’t really cared. But after this weeks assignment and reading, I decided enough is enough.

A lot of the times he shares small stuff, about celebrities and what not, but a lot of the times it is just blatantly false. This time, however, he shared misinformation about the coronavirus. So the other night when we were just sitting on the couch, I asked him about it. (I tried to find the article again to link it in here, but he deleted it from his page and I cannot find it again).

I asked him, “Did you fact check this source?” and he told me no, he didn’t because he did not feel the need to. So I told him I did it for him, and that what he shared was indeed false, and he needs to be careful what he shares.

He did not like this. For one, he didn’t see what the big deal was about sharing false information. So filled him in on why it’s not okay to do that. He started to get a little bit of an understanding, but I still don’t think he cares.

He also didn’t like that I was trying to “prove him wrong” which was crazy to me. I really was just trying to help him. Spreading false information about something so serious is not okay. I just wanted him to realize that.

After explaining to him that I was not trying to prove him wrong, but just get him to understand, he started to get it. Luckily, it didn’t cause any major fight, and he has gotten over it.

He also has started asking me whether or not an article seems true before he asks it. So, my next task is to now get him to learn how to do that on his own.

 

My key takeaway from this weeks reading is that the law impacts the media, A LOT. From copyright, censorship, privacy laws, and so many more, it would be impossible for the law not to have an impact on the media.

A lot of this stuff does concern me, I would have to be crazy for it not to concern me. There are so many things that people (especially the government) can legally get away with.

One of the most interesting things to me was the article “9th Circuit: It’s a federal crime to visit a website after being told not to visit it.”  This article walks through a court case that, essentially, ruled if someone visits a website after the owner told them not to, it is a federal crime. There was a lot more that went into it, but that was the gist of it. It is concerning because a minor mistake can be a federal crime.

Another issue that stood out as very concerning to me was copyright laws. On the surface, copyright laws seem pretty good. People cannot steal your work without getting in legal trouble, that sounds good.

However, these laws also have some loopholes in them, mainly for big corporations. In our reading this week, we read about the John Deere case. Because John Deere legally owns the software, people cannot fix their own tractors.

This law can be used for almost any kind of technology, because software is in everything. Meaning, people cannot fix their own stuff. However, as we also read, these laws are starting to be lifted, but not all the way, which is highly concerning.  If we own the product, we should be able to fix it, no matter what.

Privacy laws also bring up some concern. Before this reading, I knew the government was collecting information about citizens through the internet. But I never knew the extent of it.

There are so many ways the government is legally taking our information. Through laws and acts such as The Patriot Act and PRISM, the government is legally spying on citizens. They can see and track everything we do.

This is a major violation of privacy to me. I know social media is not private, and anyone can see my social media, but I expect my private chats and my emails to at least stay private.

After reading and watching the content this week, I definitely feel like I need to change the way I use media. Honestly, stuff like this makes me want to use it less. I don’t like being spied on. I tend to be a very private person, and I want my stuff to stay private.

I just don’t think it’s fair how much legal trouble ordinary citizens can get in for simple mistakes. People should be able to visit websites they want, fix broken items which they bought, and have the right to want to keep their online presence private.