User talk:BethIrish

Hi, I'm BethIrish. This is my discussion page for wikibooks, I am part of a group project for University of Stirling. BethIrish (discuss • contribs) 18:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1
Web 2.0 is the idea of bringing the minds of individuals together on a topic to create a collective intelligence to become better than the ideas of singular people on their own. This requires collaborative learning, participation from many different people, social networking as well as interactivity. This can build a vaster knowledge of a subject with a wider range of people having different creative and intellect on the subject. Historical examples of these include Bebo, Myspace etc. Current examples of social media platforms where collaboration and production can take place include Facebook, YouTube and Wikipedia. These are huge networking sites that are used every day to share and create content. But they are used in many ways, and the types of content and how the person portrays themselves can depend on with platform they use. Facebook can be used to share content with friends and family. It tends to be less formal and more informative on personal information. Mostly it is only used now for sharing pictures and update a person’s status whereas YouTube is somewhere to upload more privately as less friends and family would follow on this type of media. YouTube videos can be very expressive and can show great deals of creativity, effort and individuality. Videos can be shared and liked between friends and depending on the content be informative in how to create content yourself, do makeup, unlock specific content hidden in games or plainly just there for entertainment. Wikipedia on the other hand is more ‘hive minded’, it focuses more on trying to collect knowledge from people with experience in the field to build information. Its aim is to be productive, busy and collective.

One of the main qualitative differences between other social media engagement and that of Wikipedia would be that other social media platforms are more user focussed and user friendly making them more easily accessible to people. The old style of Wikipedia and the lack of a solid communication system between people makes it hard to work with. Wikipedia is much more formal than other platforms but allows the flow of information to continually be changed and edited to keep up to date with current information and knowledge but does allow for this to be edited incorrectly. Wikipedia allows for many-to-many connectivity allowing file sharing just like other media platforms. But Wikipedia creates decentralised forms of control, a lack of authority where literally anyone has the power to edit and change information they didn’t create. This doesn’t happen on other medias and so sets Wikipedia out from the rest. BethIrish (discuss • contribs) 22:39, 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.


 * 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, you mention that This doesn’t happen on other medias and so sets Wikipedia out from the rest. I'd like a lot more detail on this, to what extent this happens, and in what ways. In addition, I think that there are several occasions where you could draw upon and link to resources and reading from which to provide some evidence for claims made. Additionally, making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would go a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, as you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this will make a considerable difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are especially good, and although a little on the brief side, were actually much stronger than the post your wrote. 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 have engaged in discussion 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). It just needs a bit more detail at this level.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 18:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments #1
Hi BethIrish! I really enjoyed reading your post and thought you made some really interesting distinctions between different social media platforms. I was interested in the point you made about YouTube being more private, i agree with you in that unless you give someone your channel name it would difficult for people you know in your personal life to find you and therefore you have more freedom. However, YouTube has an international reach which allows potentially millions of people to see your videos. In some cases this can result in mass online abuse and bullying. I was just wondering if you thought the risk of bullying and online abuse was greater on sites like Facebook where victims are usually known or sites like Youtube where there's more anonymity? Thanks! Caroline WikiHacker (discuss • contribs) 21:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Caroline WikiHacker, In my opinion anywhere where people have a sense of disconnection with what they are saying and the person they are saying it too is dangerous for online bullying. Places like Facebook can be used for attacks such as this but the person is held responsible for their words more as friends and family etc and the victim can see clearly who is saying it. Whereas on site like youtube, like you've already said there is more anonymity and so they can hide behind this and feel less guilt or emotion to the hurtful things and abuse they say to people and have less to answer for. Thanks so much for your comment BethIrish (discuss • contribs) 19:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi BethIrish!

I agree with you that Wiki is really decentralised and makes it hard to communicate with one another, if you dont have a proper group discussion. I just noticed it, because I wanted to answer you on your comment on my discussion page and I could do it on mine but you certainly would not read it until you get back to my page on your own to have a look on wether I replyed or not. That is not too complicated at all, but not what we are used to anymore, because mostly any social media platform offers you a direct chat or the function to tag someone or directly comment on something with a notice that you did so.

So here is my answer: You got me there! I am tempted by some suggestions the Facebook algorithm (or also Instagram) offers me judging from my personal preferences or likes. Still, I am not the fan of shopping online at all, I am a bit old-fashioned and prefer going into stores and actually looking and touching what I want to buy. Still, I have to admit that I already went looking for specific clothes or things in stores, which I have seen in the adverts and were just too beautiful too forget. So yes, it certainly affects young people in one or the other way. But all in all the number of adverts is getting on my nerves, I do not scroll down my page that much anymore as I used to do. What is your opinion on it? What experiences have you made with using the ads? Do they at least keep their promises? --DesireeSophie (discuss • contribs) 21:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey DesireeSophie, thank you for your reply and comments.Yes I thin the advances of modern communication has made our generation a little lazy in how we communicate. Unless you are able to receive and reply to messages instantaneously we think that the communication system is lacking so I agree with you their. Wikipedia is not made for this form of messaging but the layout and format is a bit clunky and simplistic and I know from the comments in the group facebook for this module a number of people were extremely confused by how you reply and needed help.


 * In reply to your questions about ads, I am a self confessed shopaholic, I fall pray to these sort of ads all the time. And articles about 'The Best Matte Lipsticks' all ways get me on to the mac, Urban Decay, or Colourpop websites. Most of the websites I have been on have been good quality so I guess they do keep their promises. I am usually wary about buying from sites I do not trust. I did however try a website called 'SheIn' which sells clothes and was very disappointed with their dispatch time. I ordered them to have for Christmas, months in advance and had actually gone back to Ireland for Christmas when they actually arrived. But other than that the products were amazing and extremely well priced and I have worn them many times.

Thanks for your comments. BethIrish (discuss • contribs) 11:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, BethIrish, Tony here! I agree with a lot of your points, especially your concern about Wikipedia’s lack of control. Like most people, I’m sure, I have always perceived Wiki to be a much more professional platform compared to other social media websites and I sometimes forget that literally anyone has the power to edit information or frame its narrative in a particular way. It raises an interesting point about the hierarchy of social media platforms and how this impression of Wikipedia being more prestigious can lead us into a false sense of security when we engage with its content. It’s also quite worrying to know that others are able to edit my words. In that sense, while websites like Twitter and Facebook are more informal, there is an aspect of reassurance that we have complete control of our own voice.Tonyvall (discuss • contribs) 09:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Tony, I agree that Wikipedia seems more formal an professional, I would agree that I would have (before coming to university) have held wikipedia as being extremely accurate, but the reality is that anyone can edit and change things so it is not fully reliable even to base basic knowledge on.I myself am not too bothered by everyone seeing my words, they can on nearly any media platform I write on, but here there is anonymity so I do not feel as watched. Although what does bother me is the fact that in our markings of these projects anyone can see. I have gone on other peoples pages to check that my comments measured up to others and Im sure people have done the same. So if I hadn't have done well I would have been extremely nervous about the openness of the comments.

Thanks for your feedback and comments Tony. BethIrish (discuss • contribs) 11:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2
I myself use many different media platforms. I have a Facebook account which, although it has some privacy settings, has a lot of open information about myself. No matter who looks up my name they will always be able to see my profile picture and some small bits of information like the town I live in (Stirling) and other information like that. Friends of 'Friends of Friends' are able to see even more; my relationship status, my age and birthday, where I study etc. Its an open book where people are free to stalk to their hearts content! My Instagram account is set to private for may reasons. There are people who I just don't want to be able to see cute moments I share with my friends, family and boyfriend and the cheesy (Only sometimes) captions I have under them. Back a few years ago I used to add anyone who requested to friend me so this account is very open in my opinion even though its set to private, I have many people I don't personally know and many of them still like my photos. The same goes for my Snapchat. This is an inherently private media platform as only people you give your unique name to can add you. But I still get many requests from people who type in random names and back years ago I accepted them. I have so many people on my snapchat that it is hard to try and filter people out, and I have (as many people are age have had to do) many blocked people due to 'inappropriate snaps'. I have over 20 like this. People take the anonymity of snapchat and the fact they disappear after 10 seconds to do whatever they want and they cant be held responsible. Snapchat is however one of my most private platforms as it allows very little information. Other than your screen name and what you post, their is no other information available.

Twitter is fairly private too, it can be anonymous or not depending on your preference and what you choose to post determines how much information is available to people online. It is however open to everyone. My twitter is not set to private so anyone can see my tweets. I dont have that many followers (1,195) So not many strangers will like or retweet me, but one of my closest friends has 19K followers...when she posts something many people get involve. When she posts cute photos of us and tags me I get a bunch of new followers and likes on that photo. It makes me feel a bit exposed. I'm not sure how I feel about that many people seeing photos of me.

Wikipedia on the other had is completely anonymous (apart from people who know me from the university who are also on this project). No one knows your real name, there are no profile pictures or questions or 'bio' you have to fill with numerous little details about yourself. I enjoy the privacy it contains. No personal information has to be shared and I feel more open and relaxed when writing here as I feel less judgement. No family members can read this and no one knows its me unless you check the class list we all signed.

A piece of reading I came across when looking at internet privacy held this quote "Information privacy has been under increasing threat as a result of the rapid replacement of expensive physical surveillance by what I referred to in Communications over a decade ago as “dataveillance:”" (Clark.R, COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM February 1999/Vol. 42, No. 2) Link to article. Privacy is more and more hard to control in this every growing world of technology and as he quote suggests this idea of 'dataveillance' that peoples actions and communications can be watched online and tracked shows the extent of the lack of control we have in our own online lives on social medias. Even the words we write on here aren't are own. They can be monitored and edited, our pictures of instagram can be shared and used, its out of our control the second we post anything.

For me, my privacy and how much information I share depends on the websites and platforms I use. I like to be visible on sites like facebook and instagram where I like to share personal photos etc. But places where it is writing your opinion and full paragraphs of information like wikipedia I prefer to stay in the shadows. BethIrish (discuss • contribs) 11:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments #2

 * Hi BethIrish, I enjoyed reading your post, I think I have the same attitude towards my personal levels of privacy. I don't mind being visible on Facebook and Instagram, whereas here and on sites like Twitter and Tumblr I like being somewhat anonymous. I found your point about Snapchat really interesting as you were talking about how people feel like they can't be held accountable and I would definitely agree with you on that. Ultimately people can still be held accountable - they can be blocked, they can be reported etc. - but there's still the feeling of being able to do whatever you want. I think that's something interesting to think about, because we also feel like we are in control of everything we post, even though, as you outlined above, we aren't as in control as much as we think. - Katienotcatriona (discuss • contribs) 21:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey I agree about blocking on snapchat, but once messages have been sent its hard to get the sense of privacy back. I agree, I do feel ownership over what I post before I stop and actually think about it. I wish we had more control than we do, I dont like the thought that my own instagram photos don not truly belong to me alone. Thanks for your comments.

BethIrish (discuss • contribs) 02:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)



Hi BethIrish, I agree with a lot of what you were speaking about in your post. One thing that got me thinking was the way you were so sure about having your instagram account locked. I myself flip back and forth on making my profile public and private - perhaps after thinking about this topic this week, it might go back to private for a bit. The reading that you mention is very interesting, the "dataveillance" is such an interesting concept. Users seem too happy to give out this information, without knowing the potential consequences, and get upset when they find that their data is being used. Not that putting data on the internet should automatically mean that data should be mishandled, just that in the current climate of security breaches and mass surveillance, we should all be aware of what could happen. In fact these people would probably include myself, as a self proclaimed newsletter addict who signs up just to get that extra 10% off at the checkout.

Helizacarr (discuss • contribs) 00:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * hi Yes, This weeks wiki lab really got me thinking about my own privacy settings. I myself would probably say I fall under that category, I give out my details and log in to so many websites on facebook without fully understanding the ramifications of that. I actually gave out my number for a competition once and now get multiple calls daily and consider changing my number. I fully understand where you are coming from. Thanks for commenting.

BethIrish (discuss • contribs) 02:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3
Times have certainly changed as technology has evolved. It used to be that you would have to look even the simplest things up in big encyclopaedias or hunt the library for book after book, but not everything is right at out finger tips. We can easily search for the definitions of words, key facts for essays or even read whole journal articles online on our phones, laptops or other devices. But sometimes this overload of information can leave is stumped at to where to start looking, or even if the information we find is one hundred percent accurate. With the media, as accessible and changeable as it is on websites such as Wikipedia we must double, and even triple check our work. With the amount of information on the web, I find it personally difficult to find exact articles referencing what I need. Key words pop up in so many different articles for so many different subjects. I have had to be very specific with what I search now, to narrow down the searches enough to find what I’m looking for. Due to the short space of time that this project has between posting your Wiki Exercise and when you have to have comments done, the overlap in the wiki project and my may other essays for other subjects I have found that I time management has been hard. I had an essay due in the same time as the last wiki exercise and now have this one to deal with when the looming deadline of the wikiproject is ever nearing.

Comments #3
Hi Beth, I found your post really interesting. I really like how you have picked up on how we use to read books as forms of information. I have recently started reading a book before bed as I feel if I am on my phone I get distracted and my mind doesn't switch off. I feel I am on the internet all day, my brain needs a rest before I go to sleep. I agree with you when you say that you try and narrow down your searches on the internet, this is why I use Google Scholar as I feel I can search for a very specific topic, and something will always come up. Do you think that we should start using books more, or do you think society is so far gone that there is no coming back to them. I love the internet, don't get me wrong, but I much prefer sitting down and reading a hard copy of something and being able to use a highlighter and pen to take notes. I feel when using the internet you can easily become distracted and not take as much in. Our group is only an 8 for the WikiProject so we are finding it okay to balance the word load, if you are on of the bigger groups, then I understand you will have a lot more people trying to contribute for you to find the perfect solution.

susannamhawes Susannamhawes (discuss • contribs) 13:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi
 * I used to love reading books before bed, that was before I got addicted to my phone and the internet. I also us google scholar as my main point of reference when I am searching for articles. I agree that its much easier to narrow down your searches. I feel for certain topics it might be easier going to the library and taking out specific books. But for the most part I think technology has spoiled our generation. We are too used to having the information at their fingertips. I agree with you when you saying you find it easier reading a physical copy or book. I sometimes will print out readings to make it easier for me and so I am able to highlight key points. BethIrish (discuss • contribs) 17:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi I enjoyed reading your post. I find the same problem with researching, it can be hard to narrow down your search and even to make sure you can find things that are relevant to what you specifically are looking for. I liked what you said about checking your sources, it is really important to not take anything you find on the internet for granted. With research for university you're aware that you have to check everything but if you're just on social media you're probably going to be more trusting of what you see - maybe because its someone you know who posted it, or because it's just something for entertainment, or because it fits with your ideals, like the filter bubbles. The other day I saw a video of these tigers chasing down a drone and the caption said they were on a zoo. I didn't think much of it until someone told me that the video is actually from a tiger farm in China that kills the tigers for their bones. It turns out that quite a lot of news outlets online have covered the truth behind the video - including The Washington Post. If I hadn't been told about it, I wouldn't have given a second thought and would have gone on unaware of the upsetting truth behind it, because it's not something that you would think to check the source of - evidenced by how much it had been, and continues to be circulated with the false caption. - Katienotcatriona (discuss • contribs) 13:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Thanks for your comment, I too find that with online research I am more trusting of academic sources and readings posted in the 'Online Resources' in succeed etc but make sure to back up my research and make sure everything is factual. With facebook, I disagree. I am always more sceptical about what I see on there. I trust my friends on words and posts etc but with posts that have been shared or liked I am always slightly more cautious to believe them as I have had experiences like you in the past where the truth has come out after the fact and the articles or pictures are proven to be falsified. Thank you for linking in the article, I am very fascinated to read it. I absolutely loath anything to do with animal cruelty and abuse. BethIrish (discuss • contribs) 14:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * oh yeah, if someone on Facebook is claiming a fact or a statistic or something like that I would definitely check, but things like that video that seem superficial (even though there is more to it), I wouldn't have thought to check it cause I didn't think much more about it. I see people sharing things from sites like WeHeartIt and DidYouKnow that are notorious for unsourced and uncredited information without checking what they're posting. The DidYouKnow website has sourced articles but the "fact snacks" (the images with some text information on them) that people share aren't sourced and people share them without linking to where the information came from. It annoys me because they claim to be a factual resource, but then encourage people to share these images containing unsourced information. - Katienotcatriona (discuss • contribs) 14:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah I find articles from the likes of Buzzfeed are often very one sized and don't always give all the facts. I share your annoyance at this. People sharing things with 'false facts' annoy me so much, especially about shows etc, and so many people buy in to them. BethIrish (discuss • contribs) 16:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I understand where you’re coming from when you talk about the effort of having to find suitable, relevant information online. Despite these annoyances, would you rather be doing this now, in this age of technological advancement, or back when you could only research through physical encyclopedias and other books? I too have had may deadlines recently. I have made a mental schedule of everything I need to do and assign days to do each piece of work. It has of course been tough but I find that is the most effective way to deal with overlapping deadlines personally. Good luck with your projects! CammeyNotCameron (discuss • contribs) 14:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey I think I would definitely prefer to be in this age, rather than relying solely on books we are able to use whatever way we find most helpful which I think is much better. I try and get most of my overlapping deadlines done and have about a week or over that to give attention to each deadline and essay. I find that even when I do that though, a lot of my time I still find myself on facebook etc. BethIrish (discuss • contribs) 16:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I like your thoughts on the ways in which google is hard to navigate to find the things you need. However, there are ways to reduce what you get in a search if you know how to use google properly. I think that you would rather have to search google for a little bit longer than read an entire book to find the information that you are looking for. I think that the wikibook project is manageable if you do a little bit every day but I agree that it is hard to manage with other assignments due at the same time. SuzanneClark22 (discuss • contribs) 19:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that google can be narrowed down if you know how, but you will still need to search around to get the exact details you need. I do totally agree that we would rather do that then read a whole book, who has the time? Id love to hear how you do about your time management? I find I have to really set myself up for work, get in the right mood and then pretty much work all day once I get into the flow. Like I've been doing today, replying and commenting on wikibooks, writing the wikiproject and reading numerous articles.Thanks for your comment. BethIrish (discuss • contribs) 21:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi I too had similar ideas in my wiki post about how the use of books and other analogue methods used to be our only source of knowledge and this seems strange to us now in a world where everything can be accessed in seconds. If you would like to read more about this I found a speech transcript that has very interesting ideas about this, CLICK HERE. I was actually thinking about the fact that technology has changed in such a short space of time the other day when I saw my boyfriends younger brother on FaceTime to his girlfriend and all I could think to myself is how when I was his age smartphones and tablets had only hardly been invented, I had a Samsung Genio (a tiny little touchscreen brick which I thought was the bees knees at the time). I remember in primary school where it would be such a treat to go down to the computer suite to do maths games, something that now we take completely for granted, do you agree? Its all quite funny when you think about it. Justgabrielle (discuss • contribs) 21:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Thanks for the link I will definitely check it out! Yes I totally agree, times have changed so much. Like Greg said in the first lecture (I think it as the first lecture) even text speak that we used to cut down the cost of texting or making it easier and quicker to type on the brick phones (I had Nokia something in primary school). Yes I think that technology is definitely taken for granted these days, I too remember the luxury of computer time in school, playing 'GirlsGoGames' after school on the computer. Now even toddlers have their parents ipads to play games on whenever they want and children have iphones (Probably better than mine, I have a 5SE). Do you think this is spoiling the kids of today? Will this inevitably cause trouble down the line or do you feel its good for them to have this much access to technology and the web? BethIrish (discuss • contribs) 13:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi BethIrish, I remember in elementary school (I'm from the US) when we were learning how to use the library, they took us through this whole search engine to be able find books such as encyclopedias and academic journals for research. It wasn't as complicated when the internet wasn't as huge. Validating your research can be extremely complicated. Going back to the main source can be even more so. Wading through so much information can even slow down your process and make deadlines come faster. Do you like that we have all this information at out finger tips? Or do you wish that we could go back to simpler times. I know I like all the information, and would not want to go back to searching book number after book number. Mpurcell22 (discuss • contribs) 10:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey I agree how time consuming searching can be and how it can 'slow down your research'. I think overall it is great to have all of this information at our disposal. It may take time but as a previous comment by SuzanneClark22 stated, reading an entire book, or wading through one to find information would probably take as long or even longer, and I like that we have multiple options open to us in todays world, we can use the internet and do everything via computers, we can use books in the library or we can print things out and highlight them or a mixture of all three! So I agree, I'd rather be here, now, in the complex internet that we have. BethIrish (discuss • contribs) 13:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4
Personally, I found the communication on Wikibooks to be very hard to use to try and get the group together. Like most (if not all the other groups) we started a Facebook group chat where we did the majority of our communication. At the start it was hard trying to get things in order, with so many people. Trying to decide on topics and making sure there was minimal to no overlap is hard. Finding a time to meet up in person was also hard, trying to arrange everyone’s schedules are around each other etc. But once we finally got to talk about what we were doing it was much simpler and quicker. We were able to rule out chances of overlap and sort out some layout issues. On the facebook group chat we added in the other group doing the topic so we could make everything go quicker and easier. I much preferred talking on Facebook than wikibook, on facebook everyone is guaranteed to see it, everyone gets a notification and you can see who has seen it straight away. I found it much easier to share links to things on facebook, however we did try as a group to share ideas and links on the discussion page I think most of our communication was over facebook and stuff wasn’t transferred to Wikipedia. Personally I found maintaining engagement with the theme and concerns of the module relatively easy. The topic I wrote about interested me and I was able to link it back to privacy issues and how technology has evolved.

As for writing for a small group in a research environment, I have to stay I did not care for wikibooks much at all. I personally find it outdated, hard to read and figure out who was saying things and who they were too. I think this project could have been carried out on a more user friendly website that our generation would be able to manoeuver with more ease rather than have the stress of having to learn all these new skills and work out how to do referencing, add pictures and make clickable links when we have such a rushed deadline on these projects. The stress of it all really got to me. Having the wiki lab at 4:30pm till 6pm and then having the have an exercise handed in at noon the next day was extremely stressful, I had other things due in one of those day and I was prepared to have take 3% on it as I didn’t know if our exercises would count if we missed the deadline. I also found it hard writing when I knew people would be coming on and commenting and reading my exercises and marks. I felt a little exposed by it. I guess it was exposed the psychosocial distinctions between the ‘I’ and the ‘Me’ I show and blurring them. Mendelson (2010) stated ‘People are able to post only that information which presents a desired image’. Seeing as the wikiproject is much more writing and reflects me in a way I normally would put out in social media, I feel this applies to me.

By doing this project on wikibooks where it is moderated and is able to be viewed by any one I don’t think it effected my writing at all. I obviously proofread more than I would making a post on social media, but not as much as I would when doing an essay. I found that I wrote in a more journalistic manner than I would when writing anything. Although it was actually more of a chatty context. The fact that people could come on and comment and respond to my work made me think more about what I was going to say, I found myself editing what I was going to say. When commenting on other peoples work, I found I was just trying to ask questions back. Most of the time I completely agreed with their points so I just would try and link it with another idea. Mendelson (2010) also states ‘People use SNSs to present aspects of themselves to their network. These expressions can simultaneously express uniqueness and connection to others.’ I agree with this statement, I feel we altered the way we spoke on Wikipedia, and although we were all expressing our own unique views they did connect to points we all made and I found that when commenting. But I wouldn’t say the Wikipedia has much influence in shaping how (at least our generation) engage today. I have never had to communicate like this and nor do I think I ever will again. BethIrish (discuss • contribs) 10:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments #4
I wrote a little bit about it in my journal entry as well, but I completely agree that using Wikibooks was a bit challenging for a project of this nature and group size. While we did give it our best shot on the discussion board here, it just wasn't working out. I don't know about others, but I was constantly worried my work would be erased if someone else was editing the page the same time I was as that has happened before. I never really thought about how exposed it was to be on this site before! So many people -- either from our class or not -- could be reading our entries and we would have no idea unless they were to comment. Do you think we feel a bit more exposed here because on other social media platforms we have control over our privacy settings, and we don't here? I think that could be an interesting research question. Facebook was a really vital point for our group, it was great to hear what everyone else had to say and what they were working on, and you really helped a lot with getting my photos in to Wikipedia, so thank you for that! Americankatie (discuss • contribs) 15:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Katie, I wasn't ever worried it would get erased as I wrote mine in word and then copy and pasted it. So If that had happened I could have just went and copied it again. Luckily it never happened. Yes Id have to say that that might be a contributing factor, no privacy settings, and no private messenger! Everything is just right there to see. Facebook was such an important place for this group work, and everyone really did help out when we all had issues. I'm so glad that it worked and you got the pictures in, I'm so happy I could help.

Hi Beth! I really enjoyed reading your post! I agree with you that just using Wikibooks was a challenge in itself and that in a way it made it harder to complete the project to the best of our abilities. I found I was a little reluctant to add more pictures, links, etc. because each one took me so long to do and felt really difficult! It sounds like you were really active on Facebook, I wonder if you think if the project had been on another platform, you might have contributed more or been more confident in being creative because you would have been more familiar with how the site works? I also found the deadlines particularly stressful, I was in the last lab too and as I live in Glasgow I didn't get home til late then had to finish the exercise that night as I work on Wednesday. I feel some of my entries were rushed because of time constraints, I don't know if you felt the same? Do you think longer timeframes would have been helpful? Thanks! Caroline WikiHacker (discuss • contribs) 21:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey, I agree, I feel i didn't add as many pictures as I'd like for the very same reason. It took so much time and effort to just upload one. I think if it was on another platform I wouldn't have contributed more, just in a different way and manner in how I wrote. But I think an easy website I was more familiar with would have been easier for adding pictures etc. I definitely felt rushed with some of my wiki exercises, I felt I could have wrote much better if I had more time. I feel like an extra day might have been helpful? Just to give people like yourself, who don't live in Stirling or have jobs to be able to have sufficient time. BethIrish (discuss • contribs) 21:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I completely agree with you that wikibooks was not the easiest platform to use. The fact that it was so confusing and so hard to start the process made everyone, I think, stress over it. Having to worry about references and pictures adds to the load of writing a wiki book, and figuring out how to do it. We were on Facebook messenger as well, and found it very helpful to get our project started from there. I also agree with you that I proof read my work more than I would have on social media but not as much as if i were writing an academic paper. The deadlines were very stressful and i happened to be away and without wifi during our reading week, so that was an added stress. If this project had been on another platform, which do you think you would prefer? Why? Mpurcell22 (discuss • contribs) 22:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I personally think if it was done in a more up to date platform, and written as a sort of blog post I think I would have know how to work it easier. The complexity of using wikipedia just added to the stress so a modern and more widely used website by our age group would have personally made life easier for me. BethIrish (discuss • contribs) 13:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Beth. I understand your comments on engagement. You said your group did the majority of your communication on Facebook messenger. I almost wish our group did that as not everybody in my group read all of the discussion, or even realised some discussions were being taken place on the wiki page due to a lack of notification. This meant some people were planning a lot sooner than others. Maybe if we talked on Facebook messenger and then transferred our conversation to the wiki page, we could have produced a better page. That being said, I am still pretty happy with our outcome. You mentioned how you disliked this medium as a form of writing. Personally, I’m not sure if I would prefer this or an essay, but I do know I liked working as a group on something new. CammeyNotCameron (discuss • contribs) 09:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Cammey, Yes using facebook messanger ensured we all got notifications, We realised early on that not everyone was checking the discussion page and due to the lack of notifications it just seemed easier and quicker. I like doing group work, but getting everyone together to talk about things is hard. I personally would rather have an essay type assessment where I know whats expected and can do it in my own time frame (I'm a procrastinator but couldn't do that for these assignments so I found that hard.) BethIrish (discuss • contribs) 13:19, 17 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