User talk:Ailsaharv

My name is ailsaharv and I will be using this discussion page as part of an educational project. This page will include thoughts about the way in which people use and interact with Wikibooks.

Wiki Exercise #1- What makes a good Wiki?
Ailsaharv (discuss • contribs) 13:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

From engaging in both Wiki sites and social media sites it is clear that the interaction and use of these two types of platforms are very different. This can be observed in both the production and the consumption of information from the two. In my experience, when acting as a consumer on Wikipedia or Wikibooks I will usually be seeking to gain information for educational purposes; to enhance my knowledge or read about a particular topic of my choosing. Meanwhile, if I log on to a social media site such as Facebook, I will be consuming events and images from people I know and will often be consuming information which I did not search for, but has been provided for me in a set news feed.

When producing content for Wikipedia and Wikibooks, often users choose something that they are particularly knowledgeable about and have a passion for. This allows them to write about topics in detail and provide information that maybe the majority of the public do not know. A good Wiki will show collaborative intelligence and as more people collaborate with their specific pieces of knowledge, a more reliable and well-informed wiki page will result. On social media sites, however, people do not produce content with the aim to inform. While people do choose what they want to write about or share stories about, it is provided for a smaller audience and often with more purpose to entertain.

A good Wiki page will have been discussed and assessed by other Wiki users to ensure that what is being produced on Wikipedia and Wikibooks is factual content. This means that all comments are open to be changed, creating an ever-evolving system. On social networking sites, your account is purely yours, and while people can comment on the content you produce, they can not alter it; only you can. This difference means that on social media you are more aware of who uploaded the content you are looking at. This can often change the way the information is perceived. A problem with social media sites which has been experienced is the use of these platforms for creating and sharing fake news. Often people believe everything they read online, and this is something to take into consideration with the use of Wiki platforms. On Wiki platforms, there is the option to frequently change pages if the information is deemed to be incorrect. Therefore a good Wiki should involve a collaboration of users and readers, almost as proof readers, to ensure the most reliable and accurate source of information possible.

Ailsaharv (discuss • contribs) 09:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wiki Exercise #1


Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is in relation to Understanding and Engagement elements, it should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band overall.


 * Good. Among other things, good entries will make a clear point in a clear way. They will relate concepts to original examples in a straightforward fashion. They will make effective use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons). They may also demonstrate a broader understanding of the module's themes and concerns, and are likely to show evidence of reading and thinking about the subject material. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.


 * This post is at the upper end of this grade band, so a little improvement will go a long way to attaining a higher mark. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and (especially for this, perhaps, the Understanding) criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets. Less instrumentally, and more in relation to this particular post, making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would go a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, as you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this will make a considerable difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, if a little brief. Remember that the comments are "worth" as much as posts themselves. The reason for this is not only to help encourage discussion (a key element of wiki collaboration!) but also to get you to reflect upon your own work. This can all, of course be used to fuel ideas that might form part of your project work. You have started to do this, but when you get used to working and collaborating here, this will improve through time.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Exercise #1 Comments
~ (Comment) I agree that when i am looking to gain information on something specific I will go to a wiki site before social media as sites such as facebook you will usually be bombarded with information you have no interest in or which is factually inaccurate. Although you mentioned people on social media sites do not produce content with the aim to inform. I think they do (at least on my news feed) as there is a constant flow, between the baby photos of people sharing their political or religious views hoping to inform others and start a debate or discussion.

I liked what you said about a social media account being yours and other people not being able to alter it, meaning what you say is out there for everyone to see. You also mentioned that people can view who left the post as apposed to it being anonymous as it can be on wiki and this may change the way the information is perceived, that's a good point. This is true as if there was for example a politician which you don't like you are ready to disagree with anything that they say or post.

I saw a video on facebook of trump supporters being read quotes from Adolf Hitler and being told they came from Donald Trump, the Trump supporters agreed with every quote that was read to them and couldn't believe it when they were told that the quotes really came from Hitler. So seeing where the comment or political views come from really can have a big effect on how people perceive information. Jackhand1 (discuss • contribs) 15:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2- Visibility and Data Trails
If I type my name into Google, there are a few profiles from different social media platforms which all portray aspects of my life, laid out in a list. I have made accounts online on a range of platforms at different stages of my life, and all of these are open and visible to anyone, to some extent.

The social media platform which I have signed up for include Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, Snapchat and Pinterest. If all of my profiles on these sites were visited, a substantial amount of information about myself could be obtained. When uploading content online, I will always take into consideration what platform is best suited. This depends on audiences, layout, privacy and the form of the content.

When composing a 'tweet', I am always conscious of the fact that what I am expressing is visible to anybody with access to the internet. On Facebook, while there are privacy settings aimed to reduce visibility, your profile can be searched for by anybody and this is often shown through the number of people, that you have never met, who send friend requests. I have found that I have received friend requests from people all over the world, and this can be used a reminder that the internet is used to communicate and collaborate globally. When a profile is made, it is out there on the internet and visible to a larger number of people than you initially consider.

When posting on Instagram, I usually think of only my followers seeing what I have posted. However, this is not always the case, as the use of hashtags now increases the audience and the ease of access to your pictures and your account. Many people include information such as their location and tag people who are in photos. This means that when a picture is posted, visibility is increased for more than one account. Another issue this raises is the lack of control over what other people post about you. With users often tagging other accounts in posts, information about you is linked to your account by somebody else. And while you can protect your own account to some extent using privacy settings, you have no control over any other accounts which may include information about you such as friends'.

Snapchat is often used to broadcast different aspects of people's lives, and is seen to be private with a low visibility. I, for example, will use this to broadcast Snapchat stories to a select number of people. It can also be used to send pictures and messages privately. This information is fairly private and it is more difficult to find people's usernames and profiles, but how much control do we have over privacy settings and visibility of our online identities? Companies often express in their terms and conditions, which are more often than not ignored, that they have ownership over anything you post on these platforms. While we may sometimes be fairly confident about who can see what when it comes to expressing ourselves and sharing our lives online, the content we have shared is still available even when deleted and it is important to be wary of the data trails we are leaving behind.

On Wiki platforms, there are similar issues to take into consideration. Sites such as Wikipedia and Wikibooks are open for anybody to contribute, and like social networking sites, has the option for deletion of content. However, everything written and posted is stored and can be seen in a user's history. When making an account on Wiki, every action is visible and this is something to remember in order to prevent actions such as trolling and to ensure that Wiki platforms are used to be as beneficial as possible.

Ailsaharv (discuss • contribs) 09:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Exercise #2 Comments

 * I agree with what you say about visibility depending on the platform being used and how what you say depends on the platform you are using at the time. For example, I will tailor my posts on Facebook and Twitter as I am aware that I am communicating with my 'friends' on Facebook whereas almost anyone could read what I post on Twitter.


 * Also, I found what you wrote about data trails very interesting. It can be quite worrying that these companies store and have access to information about almost all aspects of our lives. It's not something I have thought much about but it does make you realise how difficult it can be to remove information from the Internet once it has been posted. For example, if I was to delete my Facebook account, all of my information would be stored on a database somewhere, ready to be reactivated if I decided to reopen my account. Another example of this could be how easy it is to screenshot something, for example, you could send a Snapchat that you expect to disappear after 10 seconds but if someone you send it to decides to screenshot it then they have access to that information until they decide to delete it. This can also be the case with posts on Facebook or Twitter. We often hear or see stories about celebrities who remove an offensive or inappropriate Tweet after a few hours but by that time it has been retweeted or screenshotted hundreds of times and it is impossible for the celebrity to deny the information was ever there. Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 15:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you in your discussion about the privacy issues with Instagram. Quite recently I watched a video explaining the extent to which Instagram owns the content you post on the app. It said that Instagram can take your photos and use/sell them to other platforms/companies if they wish and there is nothing you can do about it. All of this information is in the terms and conditions -which like you said, most people, including myself tend to just skip over. I found this to be quite shocking, I was aware of the lack of privacy on the app for similar reasons as yourself, the apps tagging system isn't the best -I'm not entirely sure if you can even untag yourself on a photo on Instagram? However, hearing about the extent of the lack of ownership of my content has made me think; would I have signed up to the app had I read the terms and conditions? I also agree with what you're saying about social media profiles being global - no matter how private you think your accounts are, nothing on the internet is truly secure. This can be seen with Snapchat as well, in my own post I wrote very briefly about the fact that the company supposedly stores every photo sent on the app. These cases really highlight the lack of control we have over our online content. I also like your points about Wikibooks being completely transparent, do you think the transparency of the site is more advertised compared to that of social media which often claims to be more private than it actually is? And do you think the visibility of a site has an effect on the type of people who sign up? CaitlinCarbury (discuss • contribs) 18:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that the transparency of Wikibooks is, in some ways, more obvious to users because they are aware when they sign up that this site is for creating content that can be read by anybody with access to the internet. A lot of people have used Wikipedia and other Wiki sites, such as in school, and are aware of how easy it is to access content on these sites. Therefore, I think people are more aware that what they are writing is open to a lot of people. I like your comment that social media can claim to be more private than it actually is, and yes I believe that this site's transparency is more advertised, as on Facebook I am frequently getting notifications with options to make posts more private when nothing posted online is 100% private. Wikibooks also has many pages and options to find out what happens with the content produced and many help pages which can inform you of what happens with the content you produce.

I think that the visibility of a site does have an effect on the type of people who sign up to an extent. Many people I know have Facebook and are relaxed about what they share because they know they have control over who can access what they are posting on their profile, however the number of people who have Twitter out of my friends is significantly less. This may be due to the impression that there is often a wider audience when posting on Twitter, and you instantly become more visible. Some people would like to be more private and are aware of how quickly information can be shared globally online. Although there are privacy settings and you can make your account private, more people have protected their Facebook accounts than their Twitter from my experience. Also, famous people are one of the types of people who would not make their account private. This is due to their lives being highly public already and so sites which allow your information to be visible would not phase people who are used to this publicity. Ailsaharv (discuss • contribs) 10:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3 - Information Overload
With this Wikibooks project, one of the aspects of the internet which has become apparent is the ease at which people can add to it. There are around 7.5 billion people on the planet and more than half of this number now use the internet, according to the 'Digital in 2017 Global Overview' report. This is a large number of people with the ability to add content to the web and so there is a lot to get distracted by. While it is useful to be able to type a topic into the Google search bar, the results are not always as relevant as we would like, and this enables us to begin reading about other pages which may only mention the thing we originally searched for once. The good news is that for almost everything we search, the large number of internet users usually means finding answers to our questions and more often than not finding useful information material.

When I am doing research for educational purposes, I am always aware that there is a massive amount of content on the internet, and so I often make my searches more specific. One way I do this is to use Google Scholar. I find that this has meant I become distracted less easily by less relevant pages. Google Scholar allows me to search only for academic pages. If I type in an exact question, theory or topic that I need information about then the result will usually include what I need and will have been researched well and often in depth. This acts as a filter on the masses of web pages which may mention the words I search. While we also need to read elsewhere, the 'Reading List' provided to us for the Wikibook project helps to insure we have information specific to the chapters.

On 'apps' such as the BBC News app, which I have on my phone, I am able to pick topics which interest me maybe more than others. Sometimes, I may wish to look at the news but not have time to read everything that has gone on in the world since I was last 'online'. This enables the same filtering mechanism for the information available to me. While the BBC is often thought of as trustworthy and is a well-known company with a reputation to uphold, the increasing amount of information online and increasing numbers of producers leads to the issue of inaccurate information being put up online. Sometimes, while being lead on a tangent of information online, we can find ourselves on pages that may not be reliable. Not only is there an issue of 'information overload' but also now an issue of 'false information overload'. I find it useful to back up information I find on other sites and when possible, read comments which can sometimes reveal that the information I am reading is not actually information at all.

Although not all the results that come up on Google are exactly what we were searching for, I think that this can be seen as a good aspect of the internet sometimes. Often it can simply lead to time wasting and trivial facts, but sometimes the internet can provide us with useful information which we didn't know existed and therefore wouldn't have specifically searched for. As many different people can also upload content to the internet, each topic has accounts written by people with different views. By judging the opinions and thoughts of other users it can be useful in developing our own thoughts and understanding how things are seen from someone else's point of view.

The internet can also provide information in videos as well as text. If looking at a YouTube video, for example, which is relevant to what you were looking for online, other videos can sometimes play straight after the video has finished and one thing can lead to another and you can end up watching a completely irrelevant video and can 'waste' more time than you thought possible.

The Wikibook project is a way of becoming aware of the huge amounts of information available to us. With each of us working on different topics, it is important to remember that these topics are all in some way linked and it is possible to come across information that may not be relevant to what we are looking for but could be used in other parts of the Wikibook. The internet is a busy place; a place where you may come across something interesting and not be able to find it again another time. Therefore, I have found it is useful to keep an open eye when doing research for this book. Interacting with others in the group and knowing what they are working on allows us all to work together and if we come across something that is relevant to another person's research we can share what we have found and collaborate together, as mentioned in other Wiki Exercises. Ailsaharv (discuss • contribs) 11:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Exercise #3 Comments
Hey Ailsa, your post was very enjoyable to read. I liked the statistic you put at the beginning because it put in perspective the number of people that use the internet today- no doubt this number will only grow as we get older. I agree that Google although it is very useful to us, it is packed with a lot of unreliable information that we shouldn’t associate with or we will receive a lot of factually incorrect information.

I have had Google Scholar mentioned to me before and it seems to be an incredibly beneficial aspect of Google I should try to use more for my benefit since it only displays academic sources. Sometimes a filter on where we should gather research from is very necessary to prevent us from being overloaded with information.

I was surprised about what you said about the BBC and how the increasing amount of information online and increasing numbers of producers can lead to inaccurate information being uploaded as I have always seen them as nothing other than an extremely trustworthy source. However, the point you made did make sense. I for one am very bad at being lead on a tangent online- it can be extremely problematic for me, especially as a student. Your idea about looking at background information/comments from other users of the page to see if it’s a trustworthy source is a good one and one I try to do often- especially when the source is for academic purposes.

Your point about the internet providing us with useful information we didn’t know existed is very fair but sometimes I think the internet can lead us to things that we were better off not knowing- particularly young children because when I was little I know I was very curious and would often have sleepless nights because of clicking onto different links that led me to horrible sites. Though now as an older person I do get how to avoid this from happening to me!

Once again I agree that the Wikibook project is an effective way of teaching us to filter information given to us to what is useful to our certain topic and what is not.Tamoloriiii (discuss • contribs) 21:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tamara, Thank you for your comments. I may not have been very clear in the way I phrased the reliability of BBC News as an information source, but I meant that unlike BBC News (which I agree is seen as trustworthy), there are some other News platforms which are not always as reliable. I also think that the BBC has a good reputation and my point was more about other websites which are less well known and we should be more wary about. I also like your comment about the age of a person highlighting the issue of information overload. While tangents can sometimes be unproductive but harmless, you are right in the fact that young people are often more at risk when exposed to the internet. Ailsaharv (discuss • contribs) 10:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I found your statistics at the start very interesting, it is surprising how many people are actually able to add content to the internet. When we're searching for sources I think it is easy to forget this and so we end up believing the majority of what we read online but we should always double check our sources. Although many people do add content online not all of it can be approved - on wikipedia it can we difficult to get a page published.

Like you, I also tend to use google scholar when searing for academic papers. However, although this helps narrow down sources to academic material I still seem to get 'information overload'. I still find that there is a vast majority of sources available to me and half of them are still irrelevant to my research. You mentioned that not everything we search for comes up on Google and I was just wondering if you knew that Google filters the information we see based on what type of material we usually read, so you will probably get different results even if we search for the same thing. I do agree that the colossal amount of information available to us can lead to time wasting and I personally find this counter productive as I am never lucky enough to accidentally stumble across something useful. Kaitlineaston (discuss • contribs) 10:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I did not know that Google filters the information we see based on previous searches. This is a very interesting point to consider. I think that although this may be seen as helpful in reducing the information overload to some extent, it could also cause problems if what you are looking for online isn't something that you would normally read. This is probably a good reason to use more specific and focused searches so that the required material comes up. Ailsaharv (discuss • contribs) 10:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think many people realise that google has this filter - I was oblivious until a tutor explained it in one of my classes last year. Yeah, I definitely agree that problems can be caused by this as we are often only getting one side of an argument and this can make it hard for us to provide balanced research. Kaitlineaston (discuss • contribs) 22:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion of google scholar as I use this search engine religiously. It saves me a lot of time trying to distinguish between legitimate sources that I can use in my academic writing and those that I cannot use. However, has made a valid point regarding googles ability to filter your search results into things similar to what you have already looked at. This causes problems as most acedemic writings require you to be non-bias and assess topics from every point of view. This is something that I sometimes forget to look out for when I am researching for essays, Rachel Howie (discuss • contribs) 13:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4 - Wikibook Project Reflective Account
The Wikibook project allowed us to not only collaborate together on a single piece of work, but also to communicate and share ideas and information on a separate discussion page. With the ‘Book’ page and the  ‘Discussion’ page next to each other, it was made easy to confer with group members and other people creating the Wikibook allowing all our knowledge and contributions to result in an ever-improving book.

I found that the Discussion page was particularly useful in sharing resources, ideas, links and feedback on the work that had already been produced. During the course of the project I also discovered the importance of collaborating with groups other than my own, to gain information and skills outside of my own group’s knowledge. I visited many of the other chapters, and when I found a particular layout or tool that I thought improved the chapter I edited their discussion page to ask for help on how I could also do this. I believe that this improved the overall presentation of my section of the chapter.

When maintaining engagement with themes of the module, we found that sharing sources with each other helped to keep us on track. Referring back to the reading list enabled us to keep our chapter titles and content relevant, and gave us a focus when finding other sources online. As well as updating other members of the group with the sources that we had found for our own sections, we were also able to keep an eye on the other topics as the page was updated and share anything that we thought was useful for the content that others were researching. With more individuals doing research for the chapter we were able to create and discover content more efficiently.

While writing for a small audience in a research environment, it was also important to remember that the book we were producing could be read by anybody who came across it. This enabled the discussion page not to go off-topic as it could on social media, as the discussion page was made as public as the book page. This was useful, because I found that even with only relevant discussion, the discussion page got quite cluttered with large amounts of information and comments being uploaded by group members. This was another reason why learning Wikibook skills such as tagging other people became useful. This ensured that comments which were written specifically for you or about your chapter created a notification, meaning you did not miss crucial material.

While the discussion page was useful in providing feedback for group members, we did not use it much for critical feedback. This could be due to the fact that the majority of people were satisfied with the content that was being uploaded as the page was continually edited, however critical feedback can often make pages even better, if some parts are not done as well as others. Personally, I think our group worked well in presenting new ideas to each other. If somebody discovered a new way to layout content, they would share it on the discussion page and therefore helped to improve all sections of the chapter and not just their own. This was a positive form of collaboration and allowed for the chapter to appear constant in the way it was presented.

I found, while writing my section of the Wikibook, that I was having issues following the steps on the Wikipedia page to embed a photo. While the steps had been provided by the group, I had missed out a part of it which prevented my pictures from showing up properly. By addressing this direct issue by engaging in conversation with individuals on the discussion page I was able to get past this problem much quicker than I would have on my own.

Another issue with the frequent updates due to the collaboration work was when 'edit conflicts' occurred. It was important to remember to copy the work we had written before uploading it because there were many occasions where members of the group were complaining that their work had been lost. Writing directly onto this platform was not always the best technique as many times I had to re-edit pages until my edit was successful. This helped as a reminder that many people were working on the book and reminded us that no edit we make is final. Wikibooks are continuous work and can always be improved over time and by others.

Collaboration online on the discussion page was essential in sharing information with everyone and allowing what was discussed to remain on the page for reviewing when needed. However, this was not the only form of communication we used and it was important to meet up face-to-face during the process to discuss our work. Knowing the group better as people and not only online wikinames made the discussion page a smoother process. Communicating with people online is easier when you know the person you are sharing this information with. To get an idea of how everybody was getting on with the project it was important to meet up and have some more in-depth discussions. While doing this, we also ensured that we updated the online discussion page so that we could refer back to the decisions we had made and the information we had discovered. Ailsaharv (discuss • contribs) 09:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)
The Introduction section here is a little perfunctory, but the main Concepts section is where all of the key sections are mapped out. Each section has its own descriptive short paragraph, summarising the discussion and concept in fairly neat and concise ways. The overall effect of this is that the chapter is given a sense of narrative and structure from the outset. Whilst the discussion in various sections doesn’t always live up to this, and there are one or two inconsistencies, this ought not to diminish too much for the achievements evidenced here.

As mentioned, the sections themselves generally contain good content, but there are inconsistencies regarding the strength of argument, and citation of sources. An obvious example of this would be the first history section, for which citation of sources doesn’t occur until the paragraph on the 1990s!

The unusual step of including a survey and posting the results here is an extremely useful one. Something that absolutely HAS to be thought through in ALL future work is that if one is conducting a survey (even if for demonstration purposes, as included here) or indeed ANY work with people, one must go through an ethics approval process – this is to ensure no harms (relative or absolute) occur for researchers or participants. This process will become more apparent later in the degree programme, particularly in final year projects. The use of interwiki links connecting all of the sections of the chapter together is both very useful and evidences good levels of project management, delegation of workflow, and joined-up collaboration. One thing that would have benefitted the chapter enormously, is if these interwiki links could have been extended to include more reference to other chapters in the book. For example, you have a subsection on Surveillance uses – there could have been interwiki links to various relevant sections in other chapters (especially, perhaps, Privacy in a Digital Age chapter).

Plenty of evidence of reading, secondary research and application of ideas from peer-reviewed sources, as well as other sources from popular culture and journalistic materials. This does tend to vary quite considerably from section to section, however, with some sections oddly drawing from newspaper online articles around topics for which there are materials available in the further reading lists (the subsections on internal effects, the Google effect and others, where there are some obvious aspects of that reading e.g. Vaidhyanathan and his book on the Googlization of Everything). Excellent section on FOMO.

The references section evidences research, reading and sharing of resources. However, the depth and range of sources could be considerably improved.


 * Good. Your contribution to the book page gives a good brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a good range of concepts associated with your subject, and the effort to deliver critical definitions, drawing from relevant literature and scholarship, and your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is very much in evidence. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a good range and depth of subject matter.

Wiki Exercise Portfolio (Understanding weighted 30%)

 * Excellent. Among other things, these entries will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. They will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. They will address the assignment tasks in a thoughtful way. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts. They will be informed by serious reading and reflection, are likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.


 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, featuring discriminating command of a excellent range of relevant materials and analyses
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material to a wide degree
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument through highly original judgement relating to key issues, concepts or procedures
 * evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position);
 * originality in evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections);
 * significant evidence of independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content suggests deficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * discernible lack of engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Lacking in reflexive and creative use of discussion pages