User talk:Askoelsche

This is the user talk page for Askoelsche (discuss • contribs) 12:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: Educational Project
The topic I want to talk about is a website called Pottermore.com. It is a website developed by Joanne K. Rowling and Sony for the fans of the Harry Potter novels. When Rowling finished writing the books and all the films were finished she could not stop thinking about the world she created and she wanted to share all these information with the fandom. To do so Rowling created this website. On this web page the Harry Potter fans have the possibility to experience the story again not just through reading but in an interactive way. When you first enter the website you can listen to a message of Joanne K. Rowling. Before you can start to explore the story you have to register and then answer some questions about your personality. After this you will be sorted into one of the four houses: Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff and Slytherin. Based on your answers you will also get your wand. The most people who register on this website have all read the Harry Potter novels or at least have seen the films and know the story, but on Pottermore.com there is always something new to explore and discover. Joanne K. Rowling publishes a lot additional material that cannot be found in the books. For example did you know that Minerva McGonagall was once engaged or that Professor Umbridge has got a brother who is a Squib? These information are really interesting to read and can help you to understand some of the characters or habits of the magical world better. But it is not only the additional information which make this website very interesting and worth seeing, it is the fact that you can discover the story in an interactive way. You are not only a passive reader of the books; you can be an active part of the story. You can for example go shopping in the Diagon Ally, brew potions and collect items in the different chapters of the books. Also the website is a great possibility to get in contact with other Harry Potter fans, so called Potterheads. While normally you have only one or two friends who are Harry Potter fans and to whom you can talk about it, on the website you can talk to thousands of people who are also at least a bit obsessed with Harry Potter. If you are a bit curious now you can explore and discover on your own [//www.pottermore.com/ Pottermore]. You can read some more comments about Pottermore.com on [//www.hypable.com/pottermore-comments-fan-art-removal/ comments-fan-art]. Askoelsche (discuss • contribs) 13:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Comment

 * A fairly well-written entry. It would have been useful to try to feed this into the themes and concerns of the module more explicitly though, and you haven’t really engaged with this part of the brief at all (always, always, pay close attention to what the brief is asking you to do (e.g. you could have discussed this in the context of cultural determinism or fandom scholarship i.e. user generated fan art, fanfic, shipping and so on) or tech determinism). Drawing down from this material, you could have made better use of the wiki markup by embedding links to reading and also to the sites under discussion.


 * A post of this standard roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor, although obviously at the high end of the grade band because not all of this will be of immediate relevance to the post in question, and there's potential here:
 * Poor. Among other things, poor entries may just offer links without real comment or apparent point. They may offer nothing more than poor-quality synopsis or description of material of dubious relevance. They may have serious clarity problems (including dead links, random graphics) which affect comprehension (or even worse, admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement). They might be off-topic, private trivia, or of unclear relevance. The wiki markup formatting will be of a poor standard.

RE: Comments on others’ work

 * These are on time and ok - however, they are a little on the short side and could do with development in terms of content, scope and reference to module themes, e.g. in what ways has technological innovation impacted upon paper books etc.. Remember that your comments on other people's work is weighted as heavily as your own post when it comes to grades. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 14:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Assignment Group Members
Hiya, I hope I'm not too quick about this, but I made a list of all our group member's usernames, so it's easier to find each other. You can find it on Rosi's talk page. Have a nice evening -- Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 21:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Educational Projekt
How visible are you online? An interesting question. When I was 12 years old and had my first contacts with the internet my mom always told me to pay attention what I post about myself because bad men could find me at home. Of course I now today that it is not that easy but I still keep my mum’s words in mind. So to answer the question the first thing I did was googling my name “Anna-Sophie Kölsche”. On top of the research results are of course my Facebook, YouTube and Google+ accounts. But there is also an online article that I wrote at my home university. On the next page, which is also the last one, you can find an article about my confirmation and again two of my own articles. There are only two picture of me, my Facebook profile picture and a picture of my confirmation. The only other pictures that google found which have a real connection with me are the pictures I took for the online articles I wrote. Then I thought about my social media activities. I have got an account on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube and Google+. The YouTube and Google+ accounts are not very interesting because I am not very active there, I simply had to make them when I got my new mobile phone. I do not use Google+ at all and the only things I do on YouTube is watching videos and subscribe a few channels, so I never comment, share or like videos. I am a bit more active on Snapchat and Instagram, but not that much: I have only uploaded five pictures on Instagram and do not even have a Snapchat story (but that is only because I do not know how it works). The really interesting social media is of course Facebook. Obviously I kept my mother’s words in mind, because there are not so much information about me on my Facebook profile. You can find out my birthday, my old school and my place of residence, which is not even correct. There are just a few photos and some of them are quiet old. My chronicle is also quite empty, I rarely post something and when I do it I always think about it twice if I really want people to know about it. I think my mum would be proud of me. Of course that are only the obvious things you can find about me in the internet, I do not know how much a hacker could find out or which information still does exist even if I deleted it. Askoelsche (discuss • contribs) 13:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments
What I really like is that you start your reflection, not from the social media point of view, but a more general one by googling yourself. I followed your lead, googled myself and found even more content than I – to be honest – expect to find. Most of the things are not really “private”; only articles or radio reports that I made for my work, study or projects, but somehow I wish that some of them would not be still available. I become aware of the fact that my online footprint is even bigger than I expected and is still increasing. Now I noticed that my mobile phone reveals constantly personal data just because it is on. For example, it updates my position or enables third parties access to data via Apps. That is somehow frightening. To sum it up: a real control or private sphere is given less than I persuade myself. From a social media point of view, I am nearly invisible or, at least, those parts I can control. I guess that the internet knows more about me and my user behaviour than I do. Through Cookies, for example, I leave a lot of tracks if I am searching for the weather in Stirling. This leads to the fact that the search engine analyses my data and provides “user generated content”, being the reason why Google provides me advertisements on attractions in Stirling. Even if I do not want to reveal so much personal data or content I am wondering if I have another choice. I guess nowadays it is quite impossible to be off-line as a student, employee or friend.--Esser.h (discuss • contribs) 03:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I think your post is really interesting - I also had the conversation with my Mother about how "men can find you online". Probably every girl has! But it's interesting how quickly we're told that. The internet inherently is a public place and there's a lot of dangers with it. I thought your conversation about your college published papers and things are available on Google with your name attached even if you didn't want it to be. It's likely you have no way to take it down, right? I had the same problem - some local news articles about me winning a scholarship are up on the internet, an essay I wrote, etc. They have pictures of me that are available for anyone to see on Google and now live forever in the Image search of my name. Your post really made me think about the fact that we now live in a digital world. Even if you have no social media presence, something is going to come up with your name attached to it when you search yourself. To test this, I googled my friend Levi. He doesn't have a Facebook or ANY other social media network and has a broken flip phone (he's basically a hermit). Even he has a few biology papers and things on Google through our uni. There's only so much you can do to avoid a presence on the internet entirely. But really -- is it even necessary? Is there something inherently wrong with being active on the internet or having information out there that doesn't incriminate you? It's a complicated question. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 15:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

This was a really interesting read. When you said 'I now today that it is not that easy' that is very interesting, because for me personally, I find that people can always find a trace of you if they try hard enough. It is interesting that you mention googling your name. We have all done it, but now as a digital media student, googling your name put a whole new perspective on the search. How did you feel knowing work you published for your home university was visible online? Your spectator approach to social media is very interesting. As much as I would like to say I am not highly active on social media, I find myself, unconsciously sometimes, liking, commenting and sharing posts. Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) 10:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I really like the way you structured your text, it is a completely different perspective and I didn’t think about it before. The first thing I did after reading this was googeling myself, to see what others can find about me. I am happy that I couldn’t find any information about myself on the first five sites. I also had this conversation with my mother about strangers on the internet. She always told me not to talk to them, because you never know, what they bear in mind. They even sat next to me when I registered at a german social network to know what this website is about. But I think it is really important to pay attention to these social networks and blogs, because you never know what others bear in mind. Mausjjudith (discuss • contribs) 11:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Educational Project
In general my opinion on this topic, the availability of information, is rather positive. It can make things e.g. studying much easier and faster. But I think people sometimes forget t appreciate this unlimited availability of information and take it for granted. Information is a precious commodity. Ages back people had to travel through countries to get access to information in different libraries and today we can google terms and get access to these information. People have to remember how extraordinary and special this is. Of course not all the information you can find in the internet are automatic true and you always have to be critical. What I like most about the availability of information is that you also have the possibility to get in touch with other consumers all over the world and can discuss about the information with them, so being a part of the collective intelligence or “wisdom of crowds” as [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Surowiecki James Surowiecki] called it. [//fuchs.uti.at/ Christian Fuchs] also sees this development rather positive and says that “the act of co-creating and sharing knowledge can help create well-rounded individuals”. So the sharing of knowledge is not just about free access of information, but can be a possibility to support our skills e.g. social skills. But the abundance of information can be very confusing and overwhelm people, so you always should feel certain about the things you are looking for.

And I also think that the possible distraction is not that bad. Of course you have to pay attention how much time you spend in the internet and that you will not forget the “real life”, but as [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danah_boyd danah boyd] said it is not that easy to draw a clear line. I have to admit that sometimes it can be very easy to get distracted especially on Wikipedia. When I search for information about for example an actor, I then want to know in which films he also featured, then I see another actor who also featured in this film and so on. At the end I sometimes forgot what I was originally looking for. I know that can be a bit scary, but I think it is really interesting and fascinating to know how all these things are connected.

In conclusion my point of view on this topic is quiet positive and I think the unlimited access to knowledge can be very helpful, but it is important that people have a showdown with the complexity and are aware about the possible dangers in their handling of information but also about the possibilities. Askoelsche (discuss • contribs) 12:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Educational Project
My concluding impression of the wikibook project is much more positive than I expected it to be. In week 8 of the lectures we talked about [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_Surplus cognitive surplus] and [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Shirky Clay Shirky] (2010) who said that “the actions of groups add up to much more than the aggregated acts of individuals” and after our group work I can totally agree to that. The wikibook project was different to other “normal” group projects where you split up the different parts of your topic and every group member only works on his part, but in this case we had the opportunity to communicate during the whole processing step and were always aware of the group members progress and even of the progress of the other groups. We had the chance to bring up new ideas and develop new trains of thoughts. So at the end the result was much more complex and well-thought-out than just the aggregated parts. This is also referring to [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence collective intelligence] and the [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds wisdom of crowds]. Even though I still do not quite understand why we were splitted-up into groups of five but in the end worked with a big group on the topic it didn’t affected my experience or the group experience. It did not matter how big our actual group was, what mattered was that we created something together. There is another quotation we got to know in week 9 that sums up quite well my experience or respectively the ultimate result of the wikibook project: [//davidgauntlett.com/portfolio/media-studies-2-0/ Gauntlett said that Web 2.0] is about “harnessing the collective abilities of the members of an online network, to make an especially powerful resource or service. [...] any collective activity which is enabled by people’s passions and becomes something greater than the sum of its parts” (2011). Furthermore I noticed that my participation was much different than my normal behaviour in the internet and also in the lectures and seminars. Normally I am a bit quiet and shy, I don’t comment or share much with other users of e.g. social media websites. But during the project I commented a lot more than usually and informed my group members about my ideas and thoughts of our topic. In this context you can really say that “making is connecting”. And I did not only participate more because I knew that engagement was very important for my mark, I think a decisive factor was that I acted anonymously to a certain degree. The four other people of my small group might know who I am but I think the more than 100 students of our modul will not know who is behind this user name and will hardly remember my face or name, also intensified by the fact that I am so shy during the lectures. So my online identity during the wikibook project was a bit different to the one in social media. Maybe that was because of the fact that I wasn’t only a user this time, but also a producer. More precisely I was a consumer by reading the content of the other students and a producer by publishing my own texts, or as [//www.alvintoffler.net/?fa=gallery Alvin Toffler] I became a “[//https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosumer Prosumer]”. It was much work and very stressful, but when we were finished I was proud that we created such a big and extensive book, but I have to admit that I do not want to hear the word “wikibook” for a while now. Askoelsche (discuss • contribs) 10:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments

I like your reference to Clay Shirky, a lot of his concepts have resonated with me throughout this project, which surprised me at first because I couldn't seem to understand the importance of the cognitive surplus until I understood that it is merely an indicator of how we, as human beings spend our time and how it collectively could be harnessed for the good, and like you said this notion was very much reinforced throughout this project. The importance of people's passions are of course important, and it is particularly saddening that in the 21st century this isn't emphasised enough. I think as human beings we should work to bring the best out of each other. Collaboration is key. Kurtismccallie95 (discuss • contribs) 10:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I can totally understand that you don't want to hear the word 'Wikibook' for a while and I agree with that. Besides I like your point of view regarding to the producer and consumer. On social websites you have to be aware of what you are writing, because everyone knows who you are. Working on the wkibook project was kind of anonymously. Therefore it is much more easier to comment and participate in this process. I also think Gauntlett summarizes this process of sharing very well, because this means that people participate in their own lives have the feeling of being alive. It is a way to encourage and develop one another in a shared social environment. Mausjjudith (discuss • contribs) 10:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
You appear to be a major contributor to a number of sections and subjects on the group's chapter content. Some useful information on themes of hate/violence, child protection, and so on. The material on pornography could have been elaborated through reference to regulation, censorship, legislation and body/representation politics, as well as some of the fact-based material produced here (some of which is, incidentally, un referenced – and could have been linked using interwiki links to the relevant parts of the chapter and book covering some of these issues).

Wiki Exercises


 * 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.

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives an excellent brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is an excellent 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 an excellent range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, clearly grounded on close familiarity with concepts and ideas encountered on the module
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material through evidence of close familiarity with a wide range of evidence
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument featuring appreciable depth of understanding
 * good level of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * good level of evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections in discussion);
 * evidence of appreciable independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content to a variable standard (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Satisfactory engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Reflexive, creative and fairly well-managed use of discussion pages using deployment of somewhat limited judgement relating to key issues, concepts or procedures

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 15:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)