User talk:Americankatie

Hi! My name is AmericanKatie. This is my discussion page. I am part of an class project on WikiBooks and interested in exploring opportunities through this community. Americankatie (discuss • contribs) 18:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki exercise #1 What Makes A Good Wiki?
I believe that online collaboration -- whether to discuss work or sharing social ideas -- changes from social media platform to platform; or, in this case, a non-social media platform such as Wikipedia. I do not necessarily think that one platform is better than the other, but that the topic on a certain platform is what really generates importance. For example, since Twitter is limiting on how many characters you can use, you may want to write about how your day is going or wish someone a Happy Birthday, while Facebook nowadays is being used more for talking about politics and discussing different events or indifferences (Trump, for example), but still has a relaxed feel to it so when people start to become hostile or rude, it's off-putting. Another big concept about social media to discuss different collaborations is the "chill" sense about everything. On websites such as Wikipedia, you won't be looking at an article with a lot of emojis or shorter words (u instead of you, ur instead of you're), everything on here will be discussed in a very upright and almost posh, educational tone.

The reason for the educational and respectful tone on forums such as these may be because everyone has a general sense of how to treat others while still getting your point across, but it also may have to do with the rules set in place by the founders of Wikipedia that websites such as Facebook don't have in place. While Facebook does have a more relaxed tone to it, some people who have profiles definitely manage to get more heated during discussions then they do on here and will suddenly go from trying to get their point across to cyber bullying and calling others names. I feel like websites -- social media or not -- should have a basic set of rules in place for instances such as these. Although it can infringe on your first amendment rights to freedom of speech, there is a certain barrier that should not be crossed and a level of respect that should be maintained when trying to collaborate with others. Americankatie (discuss • contribs) 22:45, 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.


 * 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.


 * This post is at the lower end of this grade band, so there’s 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 have given some really strong indicators of the kinds of things you're interested in exploring. Your responses to other people's posts are interesting in that they sort of extend these themes across into their work, so I think there's a lot of scope to extend and reflect upon these themes. Additionally, as I've noted with others, 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 – as I've mentioned, these are fairly good. 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. I like that you have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!) and also that you are beginning to discuss in an open and critical way (that is to say, you've responded to what other people are saying and are contributing meaningfully to discussion - arguably the civic element of wiki that you ought to be thinking about, which you clearly are).

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 18:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I've found over the past US election that politics have worked their way into other platforms aside from Facebook. While Facebook used to be the main platform for discussion regarding politics through shared posts and comments, it retained its personal level as you were sharing with those you consider "friends". However in the past year, platforms such as InstaGram and Twitter have become places to share posts dedicated to women's rights, movements against the current political environment, and to support ideas rather than people. The platforms are being used for a collaboration of people who may not know each other, but support the same ideas. Twitter especially has become heavy involving debate about current events because people are able to directly tweet those involved in the situation such as major politicians or public figures and through the use of hashtags, anyone is able to find others who support the same cause. Natashakirmse (discuss • contribs) 16:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess users on any public platform can become rude or troll others, whether that is an informal setting like Facebook as you describe, or in a more formal sense on Wikipedia by sabotaging ongoing work. Perhaps it's just as well there is the ability to retrieve work which has been lost and return to a previous incarnation of a text!Vickthestick (discuss • contribs) 12:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I feel that Wikipedia is a good platform to discuss topics with irrefutable facts and statements. For the reason that this is a more "scholarly" website rather than Facebook. The idea of arguing facts in a scholarly setting is not what makes a good wiki. Rather the users write about what they actually know to be true and trust other users sources. Madisonhen (discuss • contribs) 21:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki exercise #2 Visibility and Data Trails
There are many different forms of privacy for different social media platforms. For example, on my Facebook and most others my age, everything is private, so you can't see what we post or share unless you are friends. A lot of millennials do this because of the difficulty of finding a job in today's society. Many potential employers look at social media sights so that they are able to see what kind of person they are about to hire, and if they see you sharing a ton of drunk photos on Facebook, your chances go way down. But if they are looking for you and only see a profile picture of you smiling in a professional photo, with something cliche like the beach as your cover photo, they have no social media presence to base you off of. Another popular media platform is Twitter. My twitter is very hard to find unless I were giving you the handle -- the handle, name, and photo are nothing related to my life, which I do on purpose because I wouldn't want future employers to judge me off of my Twitter presence. My online identity on Twitter, while very much my personality, does have some differences with what I find funny or "retweet" and it may be something they judge me for. But this is a reason a lot of my generation have "private Twitters (PTs)" or "finstas", so they can share photos and stories they normally wouldn't on their public profiles with their closest friends.

While a lot of times I do feel under control with my media platforms because I can control the security settings, who I add, who follows me, etc. I always have a voice in the back of my head questioning -- how much control do I REALLY have? Many times, you have to remember that even though you post things to people only you allow on your feed, those people could screenshot and share your words with others. It's part of our natural order of society that some will talk down and degrade others for what you say on Facebook or how you present yourself on Instagram, and once something is online, it can always be back-traced.

Nothing on the Internet is ever "private" there are always ways around fire walls and there are hackers that could gain access to any of my accounts within minutes. Especially with apps such as Snapchat, the conspiracy going around that the government has control and are using the filters to build face recognition and look for people on watch lists, while I find it extremely unlikely because it breaches my individual privacy, it could be very real and we would have no way of knowing. Another popular trend within social media right now (at least back in the states), is to find people's tweets or posts from months -- sometimes years ago -- and send it to their universities or employers to get them expelled or fired. The wave of liberals in our society is making sure that no stone is unturned and they are holding white oppressors accountable for their words and actions, which leads back to my comment about how nothing is ever private. Between people constantly sharing your posts and screenshots and even cookie trails, you have to be cautious now about what you are putting out there and how you're presenting yourself because no one knows where there information could end up after pressing "post" for the world to see. Americankatie (discuss • contribs) 10:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I also keep my accounts private because of the possibility that a future employer will judge me based on my posts. It is good that we are able to have that option on social media and to always be mindful of what we post anyway because we never know who will screenshot something incriminating and send it to an employer or even a parent. I think its a good idea that you have your twitter set as a different name that way you can do and say what you want freely, it is sad that you have to hide behind a "false identity" in order to exercise your freedom of speech to its full extent. I have not heard of the conspiracy about Snapchat, its kind of funny in a way. Also very possible. Madisonhen (discuss • contribs) 13:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Your points on the need to have you social media accounts set to private are really solid, and they ring true with the warnings I have received over the years. However like many of our generation I have ignored the warnings for far too long. Yours and @Madisonhen comments have reminded me just how important that is. Not to mention you've given me a new wariness to snapchat. Xavithehat (discuss • contribs) 15:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3 Information Overload
With everything being online now, it's easy to become distracted when working. A lot of times, I will catch myself on Facebook or Instagram instead of working which makes my projects and homework take much longer than it should. Sometimes I'll even find myself in a video hole on YouTube because there are so many different videos -- I could go from watching a music video to a video on dogs falling off of things in a matter of minutes. With so much information out there, I usually just have to force myself to focus on whatever it is I'm working on, and reward myself with social media use after I have completed a task. I think I've come to deal with it this way because of the fact that I can become so easily distracted. Going on social media is never just to check, I always end up on it for hours scrolling and looking at nothing, so now I use it as a reward. If I complete an assignment, I get to check Snapchat. If I get a page done on my paper, I get a few minutes on Twitter and so on. With the abundance of information during homework, though, things become tricky. It's easy to find a lot of sources to use, but making sure those sources are credible is where the difficulty begins. It can also be tricky to remember every website or book used during research, so the problem and nervousness that comes with plagiarizing ensues. One way I deal with this is just by keeping all of my tabs open while I work. That way if I ever feel like I'm saying something that may not be my own words, it's easy to track. Americankatie (discuss • contribs) 18:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I typically do the same thing by rewarding myself with social media use while writing a paper. I always seem to spend more time on my phone than actually writing the paper. I think the "blocking" websites and apps is a good way to actually get work done, unless you turn it off of course. I find providing sources for papers to be a way into distractions because you have to figure out how to write out the source and that requires more research which in the end results in access to more distractions. Madisonhen (discuss • contribs) 13:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It's good to know that I'm not the only one that uses their phone in a reward system! Your system seems to be a lot more organised than mine as I tend to "reward" myself with my phone after finishing a paragraph or two. In regards to the source issue, have you used the stirgate search engine? You can add filters that limit the results to only peer reviewed academic journals for example, very helpful! JamieKingGinge (discuss • contribs) 09:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4 Wikibook Project Reflective Account
The discussion board of the Wikibooks and the collaborative nature of it was definitely an interesting for this class and project. I was unaware of all of the different uses and sites behind Wikipedia, and really learned more about this site as a whole. But, as great as all of that was, there were undeniable positives and negatives to the collaborative aspect of the whole thing.

Wikipedia has been a site that is known for being edited by Internet users, so some of the facts might not always be true, or the more recent, popular term "alternative facts, sad!" Finding out all of the work that it takes to create a page, though, was interesting, especially the discussion boards. The discussion boards were a great way to connect with group members -- as well as other Wikipedia users if necessary -- to talk about our project and figure out what each person was going to write about, how we would split up the work, how we would have the aesthetics of our page laid out, and more.

While the discussion board was a great benefit, the system was extremely outdated which I found a bit interesting for a digital media class. It was interesting to see how while technology and social media platforms are advancing so rapidly, that some websites choose to stay how they have always been because it works. "Why fix something that isn't broken?" Because of the simplicity of the website and discussion board, as a group, we would not get notifications or an alert when someone would post something in the group, and we didn't want someone's question to go unanswered for what could seem like hours to a group member trying to pull their weight on the project. Because of this, we decided to all switch over to Facebook Messenger to chat. We were able to add each other, start a group chat, and answer one another's questions within minutes of receiving them because of the 'always on' culture we're now apart of. It was an easy way for us to share links, talk about our different tasks for the project, and set up times to meet to discuss in person. We were even able to help each other with tasks in the Wikibook when needed because we weren't busy flipping back and forth between the editing and discussion board; we could focus on getting the project done more efficiently and spend more time on the aesthetics of our project or getting the references together in an orderly fashion.

While all of this is so great and was able to go hand in hand, it was still difficult to meet in person. With such a large group, there was no way we were going to all be able to find a time to meet with our busy schedules. A few times, though, we were able to get a few people to meet in the Union, discuss our plans, talk about where we were individually and as a group, and then we could report back to everyone who couldn't make it on how things were going. Overall, I never expected Wikipedia to be a website I would use for a collaborative project such as this one, but it was interesting to learn more about the 'behind the scenes' of a Wikipedia page and use a platform I never thought I would as a social media outlet. Americankatie (discuss • contribs) 01:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Katie, I agree with your points about there being clear positives and negatives to wikipedia and the project in general. The fact we werent given a notification when something was posted was a main reason I think we as a group decided to use Facebook more. DO you think this is a bad thing though? Did we use the discussion board enough? Do you feel we might be marked down for it? I had a look at other discussion boards which seemed more used. I agree wikipedia was unusual to use for a group project but was fun to learn. Do you think you will use it after this?

BethIrish (discuss • contribs) 09:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Katie, I agree with every point you made! I find it interesting how you spoke about Wikipedia being out dated. I never thought of that and how that lead us to communicate on a more updated platform like Facebook. I do agree with using Wikipedia for a group project was a different experience from writing a standard essay or a presentation. Meeting up as group did prove to be a struggle but luckily when it got down to it we could always communicate online. Although it was harder to get ideas across than simply just explaining in person, it was a handy alternative.

Also BethIrish I know this question was not directed to me, but I think the reason our discussion board was not used much compared to others, was because from my personal experience, once I had decided on the topic I was doing. I did my own research and did not feel like I needed any help on the content but more on the formatting. JayeRaiyatMedia (discuss • contribs) 21:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Our group decided to create a Facebook account with our group we were put in as well. However, we also decided to join another group that was doing the same topic as us. So we contacted them through the wiki site. Contacting them had the same difficulties as you discussed previously, such as no notifications. This became a problem so we decided to make a Facebook group for both groups together. This made contacting each other easier. However, we still used the discussion board quite a lot, in my opinion. Would you decided to use the discussion page more if you could go back? Mpurcell22 (discuss • contribs) 22:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)
The Introduction to this chapter is rather odd – it includes user signatures which do not belong on the book page. A couple of sentences as contribs from different users, with very different styles, and this creates a jarring, almost Brechtian feel to the start of the chapter – I can’t imagine that this is deliberate, but I may be incorrect about this. There is little evidence to suggest that this effect serves a critical function for the remainder of the chapter.

Very unusual way of citing sources in-text. However, there is something really useful about including live links to actual reading – it engages the reader in proper hypertext reading, and arguably makes a lot of the platform, its functionality, and how it can be used as a knowledge-building peer-assisted learning platform. This seems deliberate, and works!

Some problems with links that appear red (i.e. not live) and one or two typos dotted throughout.

The section “Evidence and the Unreliability of Online Sources” is a little text-heavy. It’s a fairly heavy-going section to read. Use of wiki commons images to illustrate the argument would help to not only break up the text, but to make more of the platform’s functionality. The following section on “Evidence Available Online and in Social Media” is problematic – there are a few assertions that do not make anything of available conceptual frameworks to build an argument, and entire paragraphs drawing from a source (Mayfield) that go to a dead link. Additionally, whole chucks of text seem superfluous to the overall drive of the chapter, or seem anecdotal or conversational, rather than forming a critically-engaged argument. Finally, in this section, there seems to be an overreliance on a superficial pros vs. cons presentation – this is rarely if ever a good idea because such structures fail to engage the very tensions at the heart of the conceptual framework (in this case – notions of security, and age appropriate context).

Some very useful sections on photojournalism and citizen journalism. There is some repetition of work found in other chapters – a more deliberative, joined-up approach would have enabled you to add interwiki links to a number of relevant places in the wikibook, thereby considerably improving the book overall (e.g. the subsection on “theories” mentions Habermas – where critical theory, the Frankfurt School, and aspects of public sphere are discussed at length in other parts of the book).

The glossary is rather short! The reference list is worryingly so. Some very useful reading and research in evidence, but at this level, and with this number of students working on the project over a period of 3+ weeks, one would expect more.


 * Satisfactory. Your contribution to the book page gives a satisfactory brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a fair range of concepts associated with your subject, and an effort to deliver critical definitions. There is evidence that you draw from relevant literature and scholarship, however your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is slightly lost, perhaps due to a variable depth of understanding the subject matter or over reliance on rote learning. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a somewhat circumscribed 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%)

 * No evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * No engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Little or no use of discussion pages