YOUTUBE Comments

Thank you all for the excellent comments on my YOUTUBE post, I appreciate it! It seems like I am not the only one who thinks there are negative and positive aspects to social media.  I do believe that it is important to copyright most things on the internet; everyone should have the right to claim something that is theirs or something that they came up with.  It is only fair, and it is just the internet’s way of writing your name on something that belongs to you.  In one of the comments, you mentioned that a 22 year old mother killed her baby because her baby was crying while she was in the middle of playing FarmVille on Facebook.  FARMVILLE OVER YOUR CHILD?! YOU’RE INSANE!  That is completely disgusting and clearly she was way too consumed by social media, it is disturbing. 

I was not very surprised by the comments, because all of my viewers appear to have similar thoughts and views on social media as I do.  We use it to contact people around the world, play games, watch movies and TV shows, find out what the latest gossip is and who won last night’s basketball game, the list goes on!  I have not come across anyone who has remotely let social media take over their lives (well, not that I know of).  People should use the internet as more of an escape from reality than making it their reality. 

Thank you again for your super comments! Remember, you have a life outside of your smartphones, laptops, etc.  Use social media as a stress reliever or purely for entertainment, never let it consume you! Take care, and get excited for my next post! It’ll be a little different than my recent posts 😉  TOODLES!  



Social media has consumed such a large portion of our lives, that we question whether or not it is a positive asset to our society.  There really is no correct answer to that because there is a lot of good and bad that comes with social media.  Yes, it is an easy and quick way to connect with millions around the world, catch up on the latest gossip on your favourite celeb, and see who won last night’s hockey game, BUT social media can be dangerous and consuming whereas social media has become so popular that it is uncontrollable.  It is almost impossible to keep up with all of that sites, devices, pages, etc.

One of my favourite sites to visit is YouTube, and I know I am not alone with this topic! I love to watch trailers for movies, re-watch sport updates, watch music videos and paparazzi videos, oh the list goes on!  In the article, YouTube: Where Cultural Memory and Copyright Converge, Hilderbrand states that “with the expansion of high-speed connections and crowing computer memory capacities, internet video distribution – from BitTorrent downloading to short-form streaming – has at long last become viable on a massive scale”.  This just declares that sites that offer videos are becoming super easy, fast and promising for all of the users because everything the site creator needs to produce a solid and popular site is offered to them.

Another article I read focusing on YouTube is called YouTube: the new Cinema of Attractions, where Rizzo states that “social networking sites such as YouTube are populated by subscribers actively looking for novelty. Therefore, YouTube clips engage an audience that is highly attuned to attractions”.  YouTube clips are constantly being uploaded by absolutely anyone around the world with similar interests as YOU! There are YouTube clips floating around from years ago and from a few seconds ago, which creates a large range of videos that can attract a whole bunch of people that are interested in completely different topics.

That’s all for now YouTube-ers!


Hilderbrand, L. (2007). Youtube: Where Cultural Memory and Copyright Converge. Film Quarterly. Vol. 61, No. 1,  48-57.
Rizzo, T. YouTube: the New Cinema of Attractions SCAN | journal of media arts culture. Vol 5, No. 1, Online journal.

Op-Ed Piece *Toronto Blue Jays*

I am going to be honest, a peer produced encyclopedia does not sound very promising, yet Wikipedia has proven to be more reliable than we all thought.  The Wikipedia articles that I have read in the past were all properly cited and contained accurate information.  I have chosen to write about a Wikipedia article simply on the Toronto Blue Jays, only because I am a huge Jays fan if you didn’t already know! The article is well written, containing images of their logo, current uniforms for home, away and alternate games and their four colours: royal blue, navy blue, white and red.  The history of the Toronto Blue Jays is also highlighted, including dates, seasons, and of course, the World Series championship. Their awards and achievements are listed, along with the current roster and even the mascots are recognized in the article.  The owners, manager, general manager and president of Baseball Operations are brought to the reader’s attention, as well as major league titles, nicknames and the home ballpark (obviously, the Rogers Centre, which I still call the Skydome). 


I read through the “talk” section of the article and I noticed that Johnny Au provides a set of photos which are licensed CC-BY-SA.  This clarifies that the photos are safe and compatible with Wikipedia.  The contributor  suggests a news source from mainstream news/sports news.  The nationality of the players is discussed by yuristache where the user states that “given the fact that baseball is becoming an increasingly more international sport (i.e., more non-U.S. leagues in existence, more non-U.S. players in the MLB), the roster formatting on Wikipedia should probably be updated to reflect that”.  This illustrates the importance of nationality and how flag icons would be necessary.  I could not agree more! This shows that ideas can be broadcasted through the “talk” page from anyone interested.

The users who contribute to the Wikipedia articles are able to express themselves, sharing their own ideas and opinions in a discussion.  There is no negative feedback, put-downs or hate statements.  Users are free to add on to other comments, and argue what they believe.  Contributors are able to validate their argument by attaching proper sources and links to prove their point or exemplify what they are discussing.  People are also able to fix incorrect statements on the Wikipedia articles, for example, Resolute fixed the team roster section because a template was broken.   Johnny Aumade a change to the Jays roster by expanding the off-season blockbuster trade in the main article by more than a paragraph.  The contributors are able to create user names and nick names so their real names are not public. This creates a sense of privacy. 

Although I am not a fan of using Wikipedia articles for school related research, I still consider Wikipedia articles legitimate, for the most part, because many users who contributed to the discussion on the Toronto Blue Jays Wikipedia article have done a counter check.  Surprisingly, there is a system that Wikipedia uses to scope out the good articles from the bad.  Jensen states that “Wikipedia has evolved its own evaluation process that honors the best articles in terms of internal criteria. The criteria for ‘Good articles’ are, that they are ‘written very well, contain factually accurate and verifiable information, are broad in coverage, neutral in point of view, stable, and illustrated, where possible, by relevant images with suitable copyright licenses’”. This means the articles that you are reading through Wikipedia have been examined and have passed the test!  This should make you feel a bit more trustworthy of Wikipedia articles.  He also declares that “in mid-2012, out of all four million articles 15,572 are honored as ‘Good articles’ and 3,619 have won top honors as ‘Featured articles’”. This is pretty unreal if you ask me! GO WIKIPEDIA GO!

I am not much of a Wikipedia user, but while discovering the “talk” section, I learned a lot about Wikipedia.  I now know that a discussion area actually exists!  I also realized, through Jensen’s article, that there is quite the process of which Wikipedia articles are able to be put online.  I hope after reading this blog post, you all feel slightly more comfortable when using Wikipedia for whatever the reason; school, work, research, etc.; I know I do!  That’s all for now, take care my fellow bloggers, sweet dreams zz-z-zzz


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

Comment Response

Hey everyone! Hope you all had a great weekend.

I went through all of your comments and thoughts on Wikipedia and whether or not it is a reliable source.  We all seem to agree on one thing, which is, Wikipedia cannot be 100% trusted, especially when gathering information for school related work.  This is because it is an online peer produced encyclopedia.  It is not a company run website, it can be edited by ANYONE! 

Not only did we all agree that Wikipedia is not the most consistent website to use, we also all agreed that after reading the articles on Wikipedia and other online encyclopaedias that Wikipedia is in fact growing and becoming more and more dependable.  Slow, but surely.  The mistakes are being corrected and the references do come from credible sources! Surprise, surprise!

I like how a couple of you stated in your comment that people who post and edit Wikipedia are doing it to help the public, not give them false information.  It’s good to think positively about our society and have trust in those people around us.  I also enjoyed reading the comments that asserted how happy they were for having free, easy and open access to (for the most part) accurate information.  Never take the little things for granted. 

That’s all for now, see ya’ll on the flip side! 

The Knowledge Society

We all do it! We say we don’t, but we do! That is right! Wikipedia! We are all guilty of using it! Whether it is for homework, research, or trying to find a random fact! It is always on the top of the list, and we have all gotten a little bit cocky with that link one time or another. But is Wikipedia a reliable source? Are you confident using and believing the information you find on it?

The article, What’s on Wikipedia and What’s not…?: Assessing Completeness of Information by Royal and Kapila, mainly focuses on Wikipedia itself.  Wikipedia is growing fast, and becoming the source for human knowledge.  It is a quick and easy way to get information on just about anything! Royal and Kapila state that Wikipedia is socially produced.  This means that anyone at any time can put their two cents into any Wikipedia page.  This brings up the question whether or not Wikipedia can be trusted. 

Another article that centers around the Webis Wikinomics and its Discontents: A Critical Analysis of Web 2.0 Business Manifestos by Van Dijk and Nieborg. This reading is on the economic and cultural discourse which is slowly being infected and replaced by mass peer production.  Business models are being replaced by companies and users who recognize that specific field.  Although I frequently use web pages that are produced by the peer, I never actually think about the companies and businesses that are falling through because of it.  Van Dijk and Nieborg analyze the businesses who argue against this and how they go about it.

I started to wonder whether sites, such as Wikipedia, which are peer produced, are such a good idea after all? I mean, yes, it is easy and quick to use, but is it reliable? And is it worth companies and businesses failing due to collaborative culture?  Or maybe in the end, everything will be created by peers and skilled users. 

A short text by Giles called Special Report: Internet encyclopaedias go Head to Head is clearly on the web base competition.  Giles focuses on one specific web page, and of course, it is Wikipedia.   He states that there are approximately four million entries!  That is crazy! Just imagine all of the ridiculous and unjustified facts and information that are written in Wikipedia! 

I understand that Wikipedia is peer produced and edited, but what I do not understand is how so many people rely on it.  I am certain that there are people out there that 100% believe some gnarly information that some teenager thought would be funny to post online. I personally have used Wikipedia, but mainly for celebrity birth dates, to be completely honest! If I am working on something for school, there is no way I am using a stitch of information from Wikipedia, especially after reading about Wikipedia itself.  

So what do you guys think? Are these mass peer produced websites and encyclopedias reliable? How often do you use Wikipedia and what for?

Take care! 

Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its discontents: a critical analysis of Web 2.0 business manifestosNew Media & Society. 11, 5. pp 855-874

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  


Comment Responses

Thank you all for the blog comments on Behind the Screen! I realize most of you have very similar feelings towards social media including Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, etc. and I personally could not have answered my own questions better than you guys! 

I am glad I gave a few of you the bright idea to reconsider your Facebook friends, also known as “spring cleaning”; you can never be too safe! Most of you agreed that while behind the screen, you are not putting on an act when talking to people, but rather giving yourself more time to come up with responses, as well as editing them to the best of your ability.  

It is also reassuring to know that you are all being safe over the world wide web, and staying clear of the unknown, creepy predictors  Keeping your profile private, and personal information completely off of the internet is the best way to do so! Talking to people is pretty harmless, but it is smart to just stick to friends, family and acquiescence.

A lot of you made comments towards the feeling of being more confident over the internet.  Reasons include the physical distance between you and that person, the fact that they cannot see you, the time you have to edit your responses and that you can freely speak your mind and edit your photos.  Some things are much easier to type out than to say out loud.  Personally, I have posted things in the past that I may never have to guts to say out loud. People are also pretty open to what they post online because it can be deleted by the click of a button, mind you, this does depend on how outrageous the post is because some things can be online forever once they are posted.

I am sure you all have seen the MTV show Cat Fish.  It is about fake profile accounts that use real photos of random people but the user is a completely different person.  That stuff is real! It can happen! This is why it is important to have met the person you are speaking to rather than assume they are telling the truth, because once again, things are easier to say, twist and lie about through social media than in person. Be aware! Be cautious! 

After reading all of the awesome comments, you all seem to have a pretty good understanding of how social media works and how to avoid any sort of incident that can occur and cause trouble for you.  Social media is fun and may seem harmless at the time, but there are multiple things that can go wrong and send you down a spiral of unknown scary occurrences with people that you do not want to mess with.  Always keep a good head on your shoulders when it comes to online conversations, posts and information. 


That’s all for now! Sleep tight bloggers! Zzz-z-zz  

Behind the Screen

To me, social media, such as Facebook, is important for the fact that I enjoy connecting with friends, family and acquaintances.   I also love checking up what is new with my favourite celebrities through groups, events and pages.  I do, however, keep my profile very private to those that are not a Facebook friend.  To those who are, I do not post my age, address or what my relationship status is.  To me, that stuff is personal. 

The article by Sherry Turkle was very interesting on why people are so attached to social media.  In her TEDtalk, she explains that people use social media because we get so much attention and feed back from almost everyone, we are always able to speak our minds and that we are never alone.  As pathetic as that sounds, she is right! It is like a subconscious thought, and it took me awhile to actually accept that fact.  After “creeping” my own profile, I noticed that I had uploaded multiple photos throughout the years of myself which I believe I look good in, in hoping that other people would agree.  Lets face it, we all do it! 

Everyone feels slightly more confident through the internet, which makes it a lot easier to talk to people.  The problem with that, is that we are not acting like our true selves.  Turkle states that “when we communicate on our digital devices, we learn different habits”.  These different habits occur through social media but when face-to-face with the same person, responses will differ. 

Demetri Matin comedic thoughts on Myself were hilarious, yet true.  I have never had a Myspace, but Facebook is very similar to Myspace, therefore I can relate.  Personally,  I am very smart and safe when it comes to social media.  Because of the photos and information that I provide my Facebook friends with, I would certainly not feel comfortable with strangers looking at my profile.  I have recently gone through my contact list, which was well over a 1000, and realized that I did not even know atleast 100 of those people.  Lets get real, 1000 is a big number, and I know I do not comfortably know that many people. So I deleted or “de-friended” them off of my profile, which was quite settling.    

Lets hear some comments folks! 

Are you guilty of presenting yourself through social media differently than through real life? Do you feel more confident beside a screen? If so, why? Is it safe to meet people through social media?


Demetri Martin explains social media on The Daily Show—demetri-martin/clip141030#clip141030

 Cyberspace and Identity Sherry Turkle Contemporary Sociology Vol. 28, No. 6 (Nov., 1999), pp. 643-648

Sherry Turkle. The Flight From Conversation. New York Times Sunday Review. April 21, 2012

Places we don’t want to go: Sherry Turkle at TED2012