User talk:AngelSpaniard

Hello,

My name is Angel and i'm using this as an education project.

This space will be use as part of that educational project, we would like to engage on how people use wikibooks.

Wiki Exercise #1: What Makes a Good Wiki?
Internet is linked with online collaboration directly involving blogs, wikias and other online-contentn platforms. In general the spread of these platforms are driven by social media website such Facebook, Twitter or even Instagram. From my personal experience with my blog RugbydeCalle.com I have seen how a continuous flow of ideas is absolutely necessary for the growth of these platforms, in the same way as a wikia has a constant need for new articles. My personal project started with a single person, very involved with the project that at some point ran out of ideas, is at this point when online collaboration turned into the key to have the blog in constant developement. Throug online collaboration we were able to continue to project that every time required more time from us. Social media platforms helped us to grow very quickly, however, because of the amount of followers we were not able to cope with the demand. It is at this point when we started to involve our communitie in the content decissions, unfortunately, that meant more work, and after being all of us unable to cope with the pressure the project finally we have to take a break of it, leaving RugbydeCalle. With in a stand by status. It could be because of which wiki projects are more succesfull than any other, the possibilitie to add, edit or create new articles for any user is one of the key elements that the wiki projects are popular. An almost enless communitie fully commited to the work in these websites are the way to success.

AngelSpaniard (discuss • contribs) 11:02, 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 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, although the execution is far from perfect (please ensure thorough proofreading before submitting any work) the ideas are there, in the mix, and you need to now think carefully about how you might go about building these.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – 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. 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). The comparison between blogs and wikis that you lay out is an interesting one, and perhaps a key area that you might like to explore further in the project.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Your personal experience is really helpful to me, because I found it very useful how you mentioned about your personal experience of using the blog RugbydeCalle.com. This is a good example of showing the difference between social media platform and Wikipedia/Wikibooks. Besides, you were saying that the online collaboration required more time from you and sometimes you run out of ideas. This let me realize how Wikipedia gather a group of people to think through and collect their ideas, which allows the projects go more smoothly.

Also, according to your experience, I found it very interesting how Wikipedia is used for both a collection of information and as a source of communication. So do you think the discussion behind the scenes of Wikipedia is a disadvantage? Does that make it harder for viewers and users to give their opinions and communicate with the producer?

Shekkkkk (discuss • contribs) 23:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I found it very interesting that in your experience you discovered that more work was needed when you involved your online community. As Shek has already pointed out, Wikipedia has a good system of using users to gather information. What was it about involving the community that made the extra work? JamieKingGinge (discuss • contribs) 12:34, 10 February 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.


 * Poor. Your contribution to the book page gives an acceptable brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a qualified familiarity with concepts associated with your subject, and although there is an effort to deliver critical definitions, the grasp of conceptual and analytical issues although reasonable, tends to be a little limited and insecure. 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 limited 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 minimally sufficient 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


 * Assignment responses receiving marks of this standard tend to not contain any merit or relevance to the module. Posts are one-liners, sometimes made up of text-speak. Often they are indicative of failure to comment on other students’ posts, and therefore do not engage with the crucial peer-review element. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement, or the user has been blocked for vandalism or other contraventions of wiki T&C. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.


 * Reading and research:
 * no evidence of critical engagement with set materials;
 * no evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * poor articulation and lack of support in argument, or no argument at all;
 * no evidence of critical thinking (you did not take a position in relation to key ideas from the module, nor did you support this position in discussion);
 * no evidence of relational thinking (you did not make connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, nor did you support these connections in discussion);
 * no 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

2nd Marker Comments

Content

There are many ways how this piece could have been improved as outlined in the comments by the first marker. The introduction is rather odd and the way how sources are cited is very unusual. I agree with the suggested mark.

Understanding

There is no evidence of critical engagement with material, independent reading and critical thinking.

Engagement

I agree with the comments made by the first marker: No engagement with and learning from others and rarely use of the discussion pages.

Regarding your contribution
As a Wikibooks contributor I have been finishing up the Living in a Connected World book and cleaning up some oddities, among others, I removed the signatures present in a main chapter page. You may wish to add you signature to the list of contributors, since you haven't done so (this may sound redundant, but its necessary to inform you). --Strange quark (discuss • contribs) 13:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)