User talk:Ailsamaloney12

Hello, I am Ailsamaloney12, I am going to be creating a wikibook as part of course work for the Digital Media module. I will be working in a group to do this. Ailsamaloney12 (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1 - What Makes a Good Wiki?
I have used a wide variety of social media platforms. Facebook is the most prominent both for leisure and work, as the instant messaging makes group work very easy. It also makes for an easy, relaxing viewing as it is simple to manoeuvre and is filled with lots of visual content which is easily consumed. It is also handy for creating groups, for example the Film and Media 2016 Group that I often use if I have any questions about course work. As Facebook is more familiar I trust it more than Wikipedia and I find it much easier to talk to people. I think perhaps that a user Profile Picture helps build trust instead of trying to connect with a purely text based conversation. The interface of Wikipedia is also far more bare than other modern social media platforms, using bits of coding to create various layouts. While other media platforms walk you through all the steps to sign and how to use it, Wikipedia is more up to the user's own determination to find out the information. Saying that, the basics are similar to that of the social media platform  Bebo  offering the use of bolds and italics etc. which isn't available on Facebook. Another thing Wikipedia offers that Facebook doesn't is availability to everyone, there are no "private" pages all information is available to those who join the website. Where as Facebook is made up of private posts in private groups, while some people allow some information

In terms of creation, I have used YouTube regularly for over a year now. It is another user friendly interface that walks you through most of the steps. Everything is usually buttons which provoke actions and no coding involved, as far my usage has experienced. It is a completely different interaction and no citation or fact checking is required. Like all media platform it has rules and regulations, which the company monitors in search of breeches, and while these can be reported to the company they cannot be edited by other users, unlike Wikipedia. Ailsamaloney12 (discuss • contribs) 23:21, 7 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.


 * Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory entries may try to relate an idea from the module to an original example, but might not be very convincing. They may waste space on synopsis or description, rather than making a point. They may have spelling or grammatical errors and typos. They might not demonstrate more than a single quick pass at the assignment, informed only by lecture and/or cursory reading. They may suggest reading but not thinking (or indeed the reverse). The wiki markup formatting will need some work.


 * This post is ok, but there is clearly room for improvement here. 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, you haven't really addressed the assessment brief. Attention to detail is really important at this level.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, and there are a number of them, so you're clearly starting to work through the platform productively. However, these are 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.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #1
This is a good summary of collaboration. Its interesting how you have drawn on your own experience of social media, Wikipedia and the internet in general. Good decision to discuss Youtube on a separate paragraph as opposed to other social media platforms like Facebook, Bebo, etc. You could go into deeper discussion into how anyone doesn't have to have knowledge of coding, but also how experts don't have to be sole contributors.

Ailsamaloney12 (discuss • contribs) 16:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ailsa, I'm Jack. I enjoyed reading your Discussion page. Your personal experience with YouTube and Facebook made for interesting insight into social media use. Your points about visual input are interesting, and ones I had not thought of before. What do you think the other advantages and disadvantages of visual content (including things like icons, functional buttons, symbols etc) are when compared with Wiki*edia interfaces? Your insight into the use of bold and italicised text were great, and the callback to Bebo especially made me think. Do you think the use of these has to do with the context in which these websites were created? Time and fashions have changed since the birth of Bebo and Wiki*edia. People use touchcscreens more often than not when engaging with social media. These lend themselves more favourably to icons, buttons and switches, than to using keyboard shortcuts and simple coding. Wiki*edia is specifically designed for use with computers and laptops. Do you think Wiki*edia's popularity (especially in regards to engagement with its editing features) would increase if they were to tailor to a changing society? OS specific apps for smartphones are the norm for social media sites these days, how would this change Wiki*edia? Perhaps this is too much of a tangent.

In regards to improvement, I would encourage careful proofreading of your posts in the future. It's notoriously easy to let mistakes slip past, even when reading so if you want to make sure each post is perfect then some techniques include speaking the post out loud, or reading it backwards before it is saved. These help me to avoid formatting mistakes. It would also be good if you clarified and expanded on some points in the post. What other social media platforms have you used? You mention Facebook, YouTube and Bebo. Are there any others? I'd also be interested to see what your more in depth thoughts on Wiki*edia and Facebook are. Privacy and personal information especially, as well as the reliability of the information on both sites.

Thanks! Jackiebee (discuss • contribs) 17:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Response to Wiki exercise #1
Hello Ailsa Maloney 12, I'm Stuart Graham. In your response you stated that due to your personal familiarity with Facebook you trust in more at a platform. I was just wondering if familiarity is the only basis you base the trust in information on? Would you say that, especially in the last year in politics, there is far more misinformation available now on formats like Facebook? And would you say you have a good filter on what is factual and what could potentially be false? Now, in my argument I am not saying that the co-authoring system on the wiki platforms fact pages is without faults because there is still a level of persuasion or partisan opinions influencing the nature of the "facts" that make it past the edit but would you not agree Facebook as a platform allows for such easy lies to be told with little-to-no filter on the fact checking of what each individual user can present, the profile under personal control system on Facebook even with privacy settings and friend selection allows for what is essentially "he said she said" culture and what people could take as fact from a long post on someone's profile about how mistreated they were by another user, this could in fact simply be the post writer using the platform as a means to influencing people against the other user. In terms of a trustworthy platform wiki seems a little more secure as at least there is a fact vetting system on pages outside of user discussion boards that doesn't simply let any old opinion onto a format for all to see, screenshot and share with everyone far and wide.

Humbly StuG772 (discuss • contribs) 17:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2 - Visibility and Data Trails
I would say that generally I am very visible online. In googling my name, the first page of results is made up of my social media profiles like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube presence on my film-making society's website which states my role and society contact email. At the bottom of the page is a news article from my home newspaper from 2003 which talks about my involvement in a community christmas fair. In the image section of google, there is a selection of my Facebook Profile pictures, my Google+ account profile pictures, thumbnails of my YouTube videos but also images of a random selection of my Facebook friends and even images of content that I have liked on these various media platforms.

My Facebook profile is pretty much completely available online because I choose to have the bare minimum Facebook privacy settings. I don't feel the need to hide my profile from the public. The only downside is I have noticed is an increasing number of strangers with no mutual friends attempting to add me on Facebook but I still have the option to reject their request which I always do. I suppose I keep the bare privacy settings as I have my all of my friends and family on Facebook and I can't see why someone else would be interested in looking at what I share, the plus side to that is when I share my videos to Facebook it reaches a wider audience as it is viewable to friends of friends. On Facebook I don't really share that much of my opinions etc. as others tend to do I usually use it to share YouTube videos or videos of dogs or generally to share things that I like, so perhaps it is the lack of personal content that I have actively put online, or perhaps it is a lack of interest about being visible online. I feel that we live in an age where it almost impossible not to leave a data trail and if people want to find information about you they probably will be able to find it, despite trying your hardest to avoid it.

I can understand in some circumstances why you would not want to be easily found on Facebook for example I know a lot of students going into Primary teaching and they are made or recommended to change their names on Facebook slightly as it avoids pupils tracking them down on social media. So when working in an environment where children are involved who might want to find out more intimate details about their teacher it is very understandable why that is avoided. It would be inappropriate for a child to know intimate opinions, preferences etc. of their teacher but also it would also it would be greatly unfair for the teacher to have to filter their output on their personal media platform.

The difference between platforms like Facebook and Wiki*media is that the information on the website differs. Facebook is a platform for personal entertainment, enjoyment, voyeurism or an outlet for people to tell everyone about their day or share a million pictures of their newborn babies. Nowadays I would say Facebook is primarily used as a place to contact others, friends, family, colleagues, or a place where people post pictures of their lives so that they will be able to look back and remember. Whereas, the information on Wiki*media is offered more as a service, it is "factual" information which is publicly available. While Facebook makes things like slander, fake news and lies a common practice, Wiki*media protects itself by having various loopholes, regulations, an army of people protecting the integrity of the website and facts have to come from linked sources which means that incorrect information is far less likely to be posted on the website while Facebook is strife with people presenting their opinions as facts. Or taking what they read on their as truth.

One strong example of this would be the the videos and interviews with Trump supporters at his rallies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFQhw3VVToQ -- In this video, Jordan Klepper interviews Tump supporters on the various ludicrous conspiracy theories that surrounded the campaign. In it the interviewees say things that are evidently untrue, things that they obviously don't understand but are just repeatting the incorrect facts they have read. One woman, believes that Barack Obama is not actually born in the USA and she specifically states that she gets all of her knowledge and facts from the websites "Facebook" and "Twitter. But if she had even read Obama's profile on Wikipedia, the source based website with factual evidence behind most of its claims she would have seen that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.

I mainly post my own content on YouTube. With videos that I make from my personal moments and holidays, my videos feature my friends and my family and so it shares a lot of my intimate experiences and while my YouTube videos reach a very small audience usually through posting onto my Facebook page. So actively I share moments and journeys like this with, "the internet". I would say that these are the most personal information that I knowingly share online, but I am well aware that my information and passwords etc. are all on the internet and I am not sure how much of my information is available online that is not in my control. For example, adverts. This is a topic that comes up in conversation amongst my friends a lot. On Facebook, and Instagram are the biggest culprits of showing adverts. The most unsettling thing about the adverts is that they tailored to fit what I have been googling. Recently I have been organising a trip away for my society to a cottage in the Highlands and since I have been mainly looking at cottage websites, adverts for these websites now clutter my Facebook feed, and my friends have experienced the same. This invasion of privacy makes me question what else these websites know. The idea that my Facebook has access to either my google account which will track my searches and relay that information across or that Facebook itself is aware of what my history on other tabs is rather unsettling. While Facebook etc. gives you privacy options which let you control what access other people have to your profiles there is a real lack in personal preference of how much access the actual company or other companies have of your personal profiles. Ailsamaloney12 (discuss • contribs) 09:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC) ]]

Jack
Hi Ailsa, I thought your post here was very interesting, and the broad but focused scope of it was impressive. A common thing I have noticed in posts this week is a lack of clarity when it comes to the specific details of what information is available about oneself online, how it can be accessed, and how it can be used. I include myself in this too! Do you think that our lack of clarity comes from an unwillingness to accept what could be known about us? Perhaps it's simply because we don't feel any effects when our data is monitored. I often wonder whether all the information about it I need is available, or if people worldwide simply don't have access to the capabilities of hackers and governments.

An interesting point you made was that a reason for your lack of privacy on Facebook was in part because you make YouTube videos and a public profile can increase your view numbers. In the age of the viral video, I think this is something people will begin to think more about. If one of your own videos were to go viral and achieve millions of views, your profile would become comparatively more viewed as well. Obviously this can affect people quite heavily. Such popularity and public interest comes with cons as well as pros. Do you think there's enough education about privacy online, and what happens when one is not private? You mentioned students looking up teachers on social media, and I remember being at school and having no guidance from teachers on online privacy. From my perspective education about online data extends simply to "don't share stuff online" and naturally this is not enough to dissuade people. In a final note, don't forget to sign your posts before you post them, it's a mistake I'd hate to make myself! Ciao! Jackiebee (discuss • contribs) 08:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Jackiebee (discuss • contribs) 08:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Response to Jack's Comment
Hi Jack, thank you for the comment. I think in part it has to do with denial yes but also I think it has to do with a lack of information on exactly what goes on. As well there is a lot of things that we wouldn't be told anyway about what information the "government" or larger companies has, for example things you mentioned in your Wiki Exercise #2 with the likes of Edward Snowden revealing that governments (in particular the USA) know much more and collect much more information than we know.

In terms of education I agree entirely. I remember being in Primary School and our teacher gathering us all and telling us horror stories about girls talking to and being stalked by weird men from the internet and how social media websites (like the one we were using, Bebo) was dangerous and we shouldn't have a profile. While I found it infuriating that the teacher was basically telling us what to do with something that was done at home in our personal time, adding to that, that she thought that I would be silly enough to talk with a stranger online or actually meet them in person, my friends were scared. It caused many of them to delete their profiles which angered me more as it ruined my fun of using social media to communicate with my school friends, especially because I lived out of town. So yes I agree that the only advice school gives is to stay away from the internet because the internet is bad. When in fact as a young adolescent I found that it made it possible to feel connected and included which was very important to me. Ailsamaloney12 (discuss • contribs) 09:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Ross
Hello, Ailsa. You make some very interesting points when you discuss the extent to which your online visibility through Facebook actually matters. I agree with the point you make about people being uninterested in your personal Facebook content and having no means to use it against you anyway to a certain extent. It is true that on social media such as this you have the ability to delete friend request and block people to protect your privacy further. You also brought up the dangers of having a visible presence on the internet when working with children, as they might be able to access personal details and use this against you. I agree with this too and would also advise those who are going into primary education to keep great control of their online presence. I would also argue that social media is important for securing and applying for any type of job and this is where I disagree with you about how your visibility is not in any way harmful to yourself. Employers and potential bosses are able to google your name and access your life through the internet and could thus discover unprofessional behaviour that has been displayed over social media within the last ten years. Do you feel having a greater control on your social media visibility could be a benefit to your professional career? Furthermore do you feel that now that you have so much of your own information on the internet it is even possible to get a better grasp and control over your social media visibility? RossWithTheShirts (discuss • contribs) 18:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Ex#3 - Information Overload
I would say that I don't cope well with the amount of information and media readily available on social media platforms. For example, during writing essays I work on my laptop and use Facebook Messenger to discuss the question or subject with my group of friends. A resource that I find really helpful in terms of support and guidance however, I find myself scrolling down the page for minutes not really looking or reading at anything. It takes up far more time than I care to admit. Without countless Buzz-feed articles like "28 funniest pictures of all time", all of the 'click-bait' material that grabs your attention. It makes it difficult to turn it off as you are left wondering "What did happen next?". It is difficult to avoid and shut off the part of your brain that is desperate to learn more about anything other than your essay topic. The easiest solution to this would be to close Facebook but as mentioned above I really value the ability to talk to the group of people to keep myself on the right track, for my university work. In general we as a generation have an abundance of information at our fingertips. We can share what we see live via Facebook, add it to our "snapchat stories", Instagram stories etc. but the bi-product of these constant updates and posts is an absolute tonne of media. We can spend hours scrolling through our Facebook timelines seeing the lives of everyone we know, catching up on people's nights out via Snapchat. Not to mention the thousands of celebrity profiles and public media platforms that people follow religiously. This is before even taking into account the thousands of articles that appear everyday online from the BBC news to our local Tab, from the factual to the fictional. In order to kerb my meaningless scrolling I tend to hide my phone and avoid Facebook at all costs, this, I would say is the only way to not spend hours taking information that isn't beneficial in any way.

I find it almost impossible to factor the wiki book work load into my hectic schedule. I tend to set aside hours to do tasks for class but wiki book requires an almost constant engagement, which is very difficult as the mobile format is not very good and I lost 30mins worth of work as the page crashed. Also there are no push notifications on Wiki books meaning I could dedicate two hours and spend the whole time just catching up on conversations. I really don't think it is a good interactive site to use for project discussion. Group pages such as Facebook is far easier to use and would also be integrated into the everyday use of social media meaning I could do little bits throughout the day. It is also very easy to get lost in a see of contributions and discussions on the wiki books page there are far too many comments etc. However my fellow group mate suggested that perhaps sectioning off each discussion using Headings and sub-headings which I think would be very effective in tidying up the discussions. Overall I find it difficult to dedicate hours every single day to the project as I have a very hectic schedule, while I understand this set up would suit some people I much prefer dedicating a few days at a time or at least an intense amount of hours on a couple of occasions to a project and getting it finished in one sitting. Ailsamaloney12 (discuss • contribs) 15:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Ailsahary
I agree with your comment that you go on sites such as Facebook and scroll down without looking for much in particular. I also use Facebook as a valuable communicating platform as well as to see what my 'friends' are doing. While you can change settings to get notified of information from particular people you are interested in, I do not do this as we do not know what information is really available until we scroll down the news feed. I like the point you make about catching up with the lives of celebrities as well as people we know. This shows the difference and volume of information we find while online. When it comes to information in the form of the news, I like that there are news apps that you can download to update you through notifications of the biggest news stories. This can mean that we are not always searching through the headlines as often as we do on Facebook. This being said, I do make an effort to choose to look at the global news rather than Facebook news as it can sometimes be more valuable. Facebook can also be a good platform for sharing news stories and this is another factor that can draw you in and often sees me spending even more time on the site.

I also believe that in some ways the Wikibooks project is harder to allocate time to because, as you say, the constant engagement makes it difficult to choose times to go online. With many other deadlines you can start and finish it and then set it aside until the day it is due, however with the Wikibooks project it is continuous work until the weeks have ended. Our group also found that headings sectioning off the discussion page was very helpful and easier to see what conversations were happening. I agree with your comment that Wikibooks can take up a lot of time just seeing what has happened since you were last online. I think if we had more practice using Wikibooks and other Wiki platforms then we may be able to handle the information overload better in the future. Ailsaharv (discuss • contribs) 10:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Response to AilsaHary Comment
Thank you for your engagement. I think most people tend to lose time scrolling Facebook. As you mentioned the option to get notifications from particular people I have done this. I choose to get notifications from my family, closest friends and my girlfriend, I think this keeps me updated on information that I'm actually interested in instead of scrolling through things and getting very distracted. It works sometimes but I still often get trapped in the timeline. I too enjoy the ease or summarised list of top stories from news app, even the built-in Apple News widget is effective. I do however find that if I spent a lot of time reading the news and keeping up to date with current affairs as constant as I do meaningless content of 'friends' it would affect my mood as most news is very sad and negative. Saying that politics and news does clutter Facebook since the US Election Rallies started.

Yes, I find it almost impossible to check the page and engage everyday, especially so far away from the deadline when I have almost a new deadline every day, so my time is spread so I can complete tasks on a week by week basis not far in advance. I'm glad your group has found that helpful, I am currently catching up on everything from my group and will probably reformat as I read. Perhaps that would help, however I feel like integrating the platform with our everyday social media usage would serious increase contributions, and a fully working mobile app would also help as I know many people including myself work on the go. Ailsamaloney12 (discuss • contribs) 15:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment On Wiki Exercise #3
This was an insightful and relatable piece of work that demonstrates the power of social media and also the distractions and obstacles that it presents. However although you talk a lot about the fact that facebook messenger can be very useful for sharing work and acquiring information you talk very little about gaining information trough external studying or using the resources acquired through the university. I would say that although I find it very helpful to ask people when I am in need of a specific part of reading I find that that is the extent of the use I can get out of facebook and the rest of the work has to be done via different means. This may very well vary from course to course though, as although the subject that I am studying (history) requires a thorough amount of reading and a very individual and unique focuses of study from individual students. Do you feel that this is the case and do you find gaining information through the internet more or less distracting when you are not using social media? RossWithTheShirts (discuss • contribs) 01:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment on Wiki Exercise #3
Hello Ailsa, I found your thoughts on the information overload very similar and my thoughts on the subject are largely similar. To combine both of your paragraphs that deal with the issue of online information I noticed you do favour Facebook for its ability to easily allow group interaction through chat functions, push notifications, etc. Would you say the wiki platform would be more useful if it had a chat function similar to that of facebook, with windows within the page [at the bottom or side] that allow chat to take place while it isn't the main feature of whatever page you are on. Also I personally noticed that when you are offline Wiki for even half a day you are logged off on that device meaning one must keep signing in to get updates, would you say this is what makes Facebook more user friendly, that logging out is so rare for most users who are simply set to be default logged in on certain devices. Also facebook's user friendly set-up allows different devices to be used around on account, although this is also available with the Wikipedia app, there isn't the level of notification capability from this app. Do you think there is changed Wiki could make to their user interaction to prompt more engagement, which is of couse what Wiki is all about... engagement over content StuG772 (discuss • contribs) 23:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Ex#4 - Wikibook Project Reflective Account
'''In my assessment of the collaborative nature of completing the chapter assigned for the Wiki project. I will use the guidelines provided in the module handbook to outline the key aspects being assessed:'''

spaces shapes the way that people engage with one another in everyday life
 * Sharing resources, ideas, links and feedback with your classmates
 * Maintaining engagement with the themes and concerns of the module
 * Developing a reflective practice on how writing in publicly-viewable, moderated

In general I will try and split up sections in the format above but I do believe there will be a lot of overlap. Beginning with using the wikibooks platform to share ideas, feedback (etc.), I found it increasingly difficult to use the platform efficiently to do this. For several reasons:


 * 1) Delayed Responses: Since Wiki*media does not offer "push notifications" I found it difficult to proceed with work as I would put a question up on the page and have to wait until the response to continue. This could have meant sitting down during the few hours I had free and not being able to get anything done, or then returning the next day to be met with the same predicament. Working collaboratively without an active conversation is very difficult to complete. It became easier as the time progressed as we were given our individual sections which meant communicating with a smaller group of people, however I actually mainly relied on Facebook to share resources, and ideas (perhaps not feedback), as there was the Facebook Group Page which meant if I had a question posting it there was more likely to get a faster response. Also, because of the smaller group that I was in, we took a section of wikibooks and from there again we would have Facebook chat and while I tried to communicate solely on the discussion pages of Wikibooks it was still frustrating and if I asked the same question on wikibooks and in our chat, I would get an almost immediate response on the chat therefore I could continue working whereas a very slow response on the project.


 * 1) The Wall of Text: With no options of 'threads' or a 'comment' feature what often happened would be that one person would write a large amount of text and people would respond in the text, which meant that it became a large section of complicated text and also meant it was difficult to see who said what, it was very difficult to follow. As well from my first interaction with the page it was extremely overwhelming as there was an unbelievable amount of text written by the others to power through before you could start in fear of doing it all wrong and even then reading it because of the complex and messed up arrangement of the text often left me more confused than I was to begin with. Towards the end of the project I did, I feel, use the discussion page and made it more efficient. Creating a bold title at the top for the most important aspects still to be completed and then making it as clear as humanly possible, creating make-shift 'threads' with the use of bullet points. But even this had problems, for example people would then reply to me and tag me to discuss the progress of their section instead of just updating the page as I had stated or discussing anything with the other members in their group.

I do think however think it was a great practice at editing and proofreading people's work and I enjoyed the fact that someone could write a section on for example 'Gaming' and then I could contribute the information that I had discovered, so our project benefited from the various people commenting and building on a subject instead of just one person. In that sense I can see the benefit and the community and benefits of a knowledge building platform.

I think that writing the wikiproject created a new level of engagement with the topics discussed on the course, but in my case, it was a quite a specific engagement with one section. I did branch out and contribute to other topics than the one I was assigned because I had had an interest in these topics in seminars and on outside of course work. For example I discussed Virtual Reality and effects that it has had on Japanese culture, which I learned from a documentary I had watched in my spare time. I thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity provided by EmilyDaniels on the main Wiki Book page discussing how a variety of Black Mirror episodes related to the course topics. I felt that using a text that I fully enjoyed and also using the theories that I had learnt in this module and applying them to a more physical example really helped me to engage with them.

I don't think the project effected how I interacted with people in real life. I understand that in the actual WikiBook there was a need to write academically in a proper tone with facts and sources etc. but in terms of the discussion page I tried my best to not make it so formal in an attempt to improve participation and discussion but unsuccessfully. I thought that while it was important to be formal in the Wiki Book it would help people discuss topics or give people the ability to disagree with each other when it is a more informal 'discussion' page. This however didn't happen.

Overall I think it was interesting to work on a platform that we wouldn't necessarily use, and the collaborative aspect of adding to other people's work was interesting. But the aspect of the communication and group work side of things was almost impossible because of the discussion platform that we had on offer.

Comments on Wiki Exercise #4
I like the fact that you didn't just stick to an account of your WikiBook project, but have shared an experience that almost everyone on the project has had. It's good how you highlighted the difference between work and discussion i.e the degree of formality. It is interesting that you point out the sharing of information with others, not relevant to your own topic, as this is something that I have discussed also. I would agree with your conclusion that this experience hasn't changed the way I talk to people either, but it has given me a greater understanding of what goes on behind the screen. Overall this seems like a fair assessment of the project.Ianthe2nd (discuss • contribs) 23:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)
The introduction section is incredibly well-written, summarising many key points in relation to the subject matter. A concerted effort is made to communicate sophisticated ideas in a concise, summative way, before proceeding onto the main sections of discussion. The overall structure that follows is well thought out, and evidences deliberation, delegation and timely organisation. Coverage of many of the salient issues surrounding online identity are included, as well as some quite well-chosen examples and cases.

The actual content itself, in the discursive sections, is a little more patchy than what we expect after that Introduction, with some parts that are more superficial and descriptive, yet others that are clearly very well researched, developed, and thought through. The overall effect of this is fine, because as a whole, there is a clear aesthetic that you are writing a hybrid version of a collaborative essay, and an encyclopaedic entry.

There are some instances of typo errors, and a few formatting decisions that could have been better thought through. In addition, the repetition and ill-organisation in one or two subsections (especially the Tinder and Online Dating Websites section, where there is a lot of description, and not much application of theoretical material from the module – references to journalistic pieces on anonymity for example, where reference to good peer-reviewed sources would have given just as good information with obvious added value and opportunity. Anonymity appears in a couple of sections barely sentenced apart, and yet there doesn’t seem to be much joined-up thinking here, nor applying the concept to the section’s subject matter (Tinder and Online dating). Likewise, discussions of various applications repeat (e.g. Snapchat has a few sections specifically devoted to it. Some interwiki links joining up the various sections would have made more of the platform’s functionality.

The final main section, on AI is particularly interesting – it is fairly well structured, well researched, and draws from a wealth of different kinds of sources and materials – ranging from peer-reviewed sources, through journalism and popular cultural materials, to speculative and science fiction. This helps to close off the chapter in a way that establishes a sense of authority as well as being well-written, and therefore is an interesting read, on its own merits. Again, an interwiki link to join the section on Black Mirror with the previous section on the same topic would have been useful.

Referencing – good formatting, good range of sources and materials.


 * 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%)
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 overall (and particularly in relation to Understanding and Engagement elements), that should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band, relative to the descriptor


 * Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory entries may try to relate an idea from the module to an original example, but might not be very convincing. They may waste space on synopsis or description, rather than making a point. They may have spelling or grammatical errors and typos. They might not demonstrate more than a single quick pass at the assignment, informed only by lecture and/or cursory reading. They may suggest reading but not thinking (or indeed the reverse). The wiki markup formatting will need some work.


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

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content suggests minimally sufficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Acceptable engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Limited reflexivity and creativity, and a somewhat insecure management of discussion pages