User talk:Bricedoesn'tlikehighfives

Hi I'm a student at the University of Stirling and I'm partaking in a group project. We are interested in experiencing the wikibooks webpage and experiencing editing software. Bricedoesn&#39;tlikehighfives (discuss • contribs) 18:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * why are you signing on the chapter contents page? GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry i had assumed (based off of Pola 2607's edits) that we were to sign our work and then in the final editing stage remove them. I am aware now that any 'drafts' should be posted in the "Talk" section of our page. I have removed the signings. Thanks for pointing them out. Bricedoesn&#39;tlikehighfives (discuss • contribs) 16:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki exercise #1 What makes a good Wiki?

 * TEXT TEXT TEXT* Bricedoesn&#39;tlikehighfives (discuss • contribs) 18:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Current engagement in social media amongst millennials tends to revolve around a constant stream of consumption. Many social media platforms exist but the vast majority of them involve a process of self-promotion through information sharing, and the opportunity to comment (enter into discussion) with other people's posts - "comments/shares" in Facebook, "re-tweets" in Twitter etc. Wikipedia pages have informed millions of readers for many years and it's online encyclopaedia of publicly accessible information continues to grow.

There seem to be many notable differences between social media engagement and wiki engagement. Primarily, there is a distinct age gap in those who contribute to wiki pages and those who partake in social media. By in large, social media engagement - though publicised as primarily popular amongst younger teenage audiences - ranges across many age groups, as the phenomenon of social media as "a form of identity-representation" continues to grow. Those who engage in wiki - as a form of consumption - cover most age groups, though when it comes to editing and producing content for the public internet, the age range seems more narrow. Also, importantly, Wiki is deemed a far more professional form of online engagement, whereas social media is a form of technological engagement which can be used by anyone and everyone without needing any form of high intellect or training in the field of researching and editing. Social media engagement, across multiple platforms is simple and is created as such not only as a consumer product but as a tool for budding producers, whereby it is easy to create videos, share picture galleries and express one's opinion to millions of readers worldwide. Personally, i have used social media - in particular Facebook - for all of these opportunities to share my opinion, comment on friends status' and partake not only in conversation, but to openly comment on political and cultural events. Social media lends itself to mass sharing and accessibility, but is often seen - and judged, through it's downfall, that of bias content. As anyone can post anything (within certain sexual, racial etc. boundaries), much of the content is written or shared with a certain slant towards one viewpoint or another. As another platform for publicly sharing information, Wiki pages can be seen to be written with no bias or previous judgement of any topic/theory/person/ideological idea etc. Bricedoesn&#39;tlikehighfives (discuss • contribs) 20:09, 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, although in this case, it seems to have gone a little awry - always check formatting (you can always go back in and edit to tidy things up and polish your finished submission!).


 * 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, I think that your comments on other people's work was much stronger than your own post actually! You make a number of really useful observations, which I hope that your fellow wikimedians took heed of (and that you did too - some very good advice right there!). One note that I've mentioned to others is that 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. I like that you have framed some of your responses 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).

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 18:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Ex #1
Hello Bricedoesn'tlikehighfives, after reading your writings on social media and wiki involvement, i have developed several thoughts id like to share with you. Overall, the passage contains multiple well conveyed, relevant points such as social media's relations on self-promotion, the professional association that wikis can have and social media allowing more bias content than wiki pages do. One possible improvement may be to include evidence for some of the claims you have made like stating the ages of those who use wikis are considerably older than social media users. Otherwise the passage is truly interesting and flows well. MurrayHighFive (discuss • contribs) 19:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I found this to be a thought-provoking piece that highlighted some very interesting points. The opening line alone is very effective and throughout the post you effectively manage to demonstrate the quantitative differences between social media engagement and wiki engagement. The only comment that I was unsure of was the claim that Wikipedia is a more “professional form of online engagement” as I was not exactly sure what you meant by this. Apart from that the post is well written and brought up some very interesting points that made me think further on certain aspects of engagement regarding social media and wikis. Frkelly (discuss • contribs) 10:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

An Age of Visibility
In todays online society, through self-representation (however truthful or not) and the personal sharing of information (through photos, e-mail addresses and DOBs, just to name a few) we are constantly performing an online role: an identity. This 'performance' is conveyed and formed not only for our own viewing but on a far larger scale to the online audience we present ourselves to. These days, there are multiple platforms through which we are visible on a personal and global scale, through,


 * Social Media platforms: Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, Instagram etc.
 * Gaming Platforms: Steam, PSN, Xbox Live
 * Blogs: wordpress, wix, Tumblr
 * Online photo album platforms: Pinterest, Flickr
 * Dating apps/sites: Tinder, Grindr, match.com

Visibility is not only available to our peers and online friends and family but to much larger co-operations, who pay for the right to view our web-surfing and keep track of our data trails. This information, in turn, is sold to advertising companies who then physically - based on our data trails - create links and pop-up adverts to items and products which we (as customers) could be interested in. Through data trails, our online activity is constantly monitored; where we have been, which pages we have visited and what we have consumed, produced and viewed. These facts lead to questions and concerns of privacy and specifically of visibility: how we are presented; what we are being portrayed as; and what information we are (essentially) giving the internet through typing our names/dates/DOBs/email addresses into online servers.

Many apps and websites ask for this kind of information before we are allowed to create an online pseudonym and the majority of the time, we nonchalantly accept. Unbeknownst to most, this gives the app/website access to (depending on their conditions) our photos, SD Card, email address, full name and DOB amongst other bytes of information. Papacharissi claims, in "A Networked Self" (p52, 2011) that "social network sites challenge people's sense of control". And this is inherently true, as we are presented with clean white empty boxes which need to be filled and squares that need to be ticked (or in certain cases, unticked). This gives the impression of self-control and power for the user who gets caught up in their own 'producer-like' excitement, and willingly - though often foolishly - hands over any and all personal information. Though it may seem that online platforms are merely trying to coax us into giving them our personal information, ways exist of changing and varying the terms and conditions of our own online visibility. Most social media platforms assume (through a pre-ticked box) that we are willing to share our information, that we give to them, to third parties. This can result in a variety of consequences ranging from a few spam emails here and there, all the way to identity fraud. As such, it is advised that users of online platforms seek out help into acquiring the knowledge and skills needed to vary online visibility.

Personal Experience
I feel that I have quite a broad visibility online. My facebook page is edited so that a request of virtual 'friendship' needs to be sent before posts and pictures become available to the viewer. I choose try to choose (especially) which photos I present online, though this doesn't stop others (friends, club photographers etc.) presenting me in a different light. I present myself through most online platforms as myself (full name/DOB/email address), though there are occasions whereby I use a pseudonym; not in any way as to hide my identity, but more so as a fun sense of online self modification and representation. I have an alternate PSN name which I use for video gaming and another for contributing to music websites like 'ultimateguitar.com'.

The vast majority of my online personas are linked to one email address which filters the information back to me. I am visible to whom I choose and am aware of the procedures in which I can edit my online visibility. One exception to this personal control of visibility is through my use of retail sites. When using such sites as Amazon, I am constantly pestered by pop-ups and adverts suggesting a similar product to that which I have either bought or even merely viewed.

Overall, through the variability of personal data, I can control the majority of information I present on online platforms. However, data trails continue to push the boundaries of personal space and visibility, through monitored viewing patterns. Bricedoesn&#39;tlikehighfives (discuss • contribs) 21:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments for Wiki exercise #2
I found this article a good read. I like how you have included examples along with the different types of social media platforms, however I'm not sure if dating apps and such can be considered as social media. Although, this could be just ignorance on my part. I found it interesting that you have kept your personal experience separate from your thoughts on visibility and data trails as it makes the study of data trails seem more objective and transparent by comparison.Ianthe2nd (discuss • contribs) 09:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bricedoesn'tlikehighfives, I found your article to be highly engaging. Your use of multiple examples of websites makes it easy for me to choose at least one of them which I can identify with. You have a good grasp on the practice of websites selling data to corportations and advertising companies. The inclusion of a quotation shows that you have researched the topic in depth, and I found the particular quote you chose to be interesting but scar. A common feeling I find myself having when I look at the topic data trails. Your decision to split up the factual aspects of your article, and your personal experience allows for much easier reading and makes it more accessible for those looking for certain information within the article. The inclusion of specific Facebook security options gives the reader a more detailed look at how you can protect yourself online. I'd be interested to hear your views on other sites such as Twitter which offer significantly less security and protection against outsiders from viewing your personal information. Your experience of retail sites mirrors mine, have you considered using private browsing on these sites to eliminate pop ups and tailored adverts? Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 22:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I found this post to be an effective and thought-provoking piece. I particularly like the layout you have such as bullet pointed list about the different types of social media and how you have a different section for Personal Experience. This made the information more manage to read. You have tackled the question about visibility full on and some of the points you make are even backed up by evidence. Overall you show an understanding of concepts regarding privacy online, the structure of the piece is also a strong point. Frkelly (discuss • contribs) 10:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki exercise #3: Information Overload
We are constantly in need, as a society, of constant 24/7 information to consume. Primarily, in terms of news articles and broad ‘goings-ons’ around the world, we are updated daily, if we have internet or Wi-Fi access. Most people may consider their main information consumption ‘tool’ or outlet to be their phones, on which they can withhold endless information through apps and internet access, as well as photos, videos, documents and audio files. Having access to so much information and being a member of society whereby advertising agencies and other forms of media are practically throwing constant information in our faces (be it products: music, films, clothes, sales etc.) can be troubling at times. Today, due to data trails, companies can offer specific adverts based on our viewing and buying history and can as it were, tailor to our consumptive needs. Of course, not all information acquired or viewed online is there to help us out (however colourfully advertised); there is a market for false information, whereby companies will advertise pages to “win $1,000,000” with just one click or send scam e-mails about a fake withdrawal from your online bank account. These so called ‘opportunities’ and ‘warnings’ will ultimately lead to a user’s downfall.

Today it is possible, through apps but also through saved choices and favouriting, to focus on what information feed you’d like to fill up your consumptive online space. One personal example, is that of my use of the BBC Sport app, on my phone. Using their self-help customization process, I can create my own homepage, whereby certain self-selected sports and even specific teams will appear in my news feed before those sports/teams I have lesser interest in. In this sense, I am in control of my news feed and able to divide my consumption of information up according to my own interests.

Through social media, it is also possible to pick and choose (to an extent) what information you provide yourself with, and importantly also, to choose what slant this information is presented to you with. On facebook and Instagram, for example, you can choose to ‘like’ and ‘follow’ certain pages/people in exchange for a daily update on either their personal life (i.e. following Bill Bailey on Instagram) or on the lives of others in society (i.e. Ladbible – a news/comedy/sports orientated multi-media page which shares with you its pre-filtered news feed). These choices will lead to information being shared with you almost daily, and based on the political/cultural design of the page (or opinions of the individual) will result in an often bias or slanted smorgasbord of information.

Media convergence is constantly taking place across all platforms, but in some cases, information outlets (specifically newspapers) are beginning to adapt to global trends of online information access – as opposed to primarily print-based information consumption. One major example in the past few years is that of The Independent; previously a print newspaper readily available around the UK, today, an app (also a website), whereby all news coverage is performed, written and presented online.

There seems to be an ever-growing ‘need’ (though arguably it could be considered a ‘want’) for personalized platforms for information consumption. The problem lies, when considering that as active users in a society of constant information consumption, customizability can only range so far. You may be able to choose which celebrities you follow on Twitter and which newspaper you receive articles from but often, the vast majority of information that we consume is done so without any conscious awareness. One platform which illustrates this form of unconscious information consumption is YouTube. YouTube is a video platform for sharing hundreds of thousands of different forms of content, from vloggers (video bloggers) to gamers (i.e Pewdiepie) to news outlets (BBC) to comedy performers (Miranda Sings etc.). As defined by the interesting concept of ‘clickbait’, on YouTube (but also across the vast majority of online platforms), either by a headline, or an image, or a mixture of both, we as consumers are drawn into consuming online information that we had never set to seek out previously. This type of branding can lead to linking users to fake news websites and illegal download pages, amongst other examples.

Personally, I feel like my own experience with my online information consumption is a lot less individual as certain apps and websites would like me to think. The opportunity for customization does exist (on certain sites and apps), but the constant pressure to consume not only your own information, but that of everyone else (through facebook and snapchat friends, and Instagram pages and twitter feeds – just to mention social media examples) leaves us clicking aimlessly for hours on end on the next shiny stock image or ‘all-in-capitals’ title just to keep our tongues moist enough in the fear that they would go dry and we wouldn’t be able to converse our daily barrelful of information to a bewildered stranger. The type of information consumed most readily, currently, by my age bracket of student, is that of ‘memes’. This form of meta-cult-reference-internet-comedy relies on the previous knowledge of specific trends and the comic (at times, non-comic) happenings on the internet. It comes in the form of an image accompanied by a caption, and though so simple, is a form of online information that whether you like it or not, will end up in your online news feed – and will subsequently, be consumed.

In terms of how online information has affected the wikibooks project, I feel indifferent. We are part of a society who spend multiple hours a day consuming (in all honesty) pointless, dumbing information (specifically through videos of cats...); predominantly we are left to sieve through the irrelevant entertainment and advert-based information to actually gain insight and critical engagement with online information. We (our wikibooks group) have used online information, through online readings, and wiki discussion pages and social media (facebook) to further our ideas and plan out a structure for our wikibook chapter. To say that todays online information has curbed our engagement with the wikibooks project would be a blatant lie. Unfortunately, today, daily users of the internet – and all the online information that lies within – have become accustomed to consuming more irrelevant information than relevant. More often that not, online information is as much a distraction as it is an all-encompassing personalised daily encyclopedia to the world.

Bricedoesn&#39;tlikehighfives (discuss • contribs) 05:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Brice, overall I found this to be a very effective piece that tackles the question asked and makes some very good points. The BBC Sport app example was good and perfectly helped to get across the point about how we can have some form of personalisation to help us focus on the information we want to get. I found your point about a 'need' for personalised platforms to be an interesting point, it made me think about how much can we actually personalise our platforms and how much information we as people take in subconsciously. It made me stop and think about this for a bit, considering whether or not we do get any say in the information we actually consume. This is a solid piece that is thought provoking and very well written.

Frkelly (discuss • contribs) 11:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Brice, this is a very interesting take and analysis on the mass information that we deal with on a daily basis. Your comments on advertising and the selling of personal information are particularly insightful. Your example of the BBC Sport app which you use to filter out news you are not interested in, provides a real world example of how to tailor your information experience to your own personal tastes. The example of social media continues this idea, your decision to comment on TheLadBible is interesting, as that is the same example I chose, proving that this page has a big influence on the information many people recieve on Facebook. Your insight into how our "personal" online experiences may well not be as personal as we think is one that I'd never considered, with many other people looking at the same things as we do. Overall this was a great article, it made me think deeper about the supposed personalisation of our individual web experiences and how we may not be as individual as we first thought. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 12:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Reflections on the wiki project and on Wiki as a tool
After having used the wikibooks format of information sharing for discussions, writing articles and reviewing other peoples’ work, as well as having my own work peer-reviewed, I have come to the conclusion that wiki as a whole, continues to offer a viable platform for sharing and editing information for the better of the public interest, but also, that as a communicative tool, by messaging and discussing ideas and views with those you are collaborating with, wiki fails to adopt to modern times.

Wikibooks is, indeed, a platform for sharing mass information with people all over the world. Its universality, in one sense, is its major asset. Wikibooks was launched on July the 19th, 2003, making it almost 14 years old. Its primary focus as a platform for sharing information has always been focused on creating a collaborative nature within its site, for open discussion and for open editing, whereby anyone can add to/correct an article on the page. Though it may seem that there is an open opportunity for discussion on wiki, when it comes to collaborating and discussing with those who are not avid and frequent wiki writers/editors, any sort of discussion or question can be left open-ended and unanswered. As a collaborative platform, wiki relies on the use of all of its members to create articles and books. Without that interaction between users, many articles and chapters may not only seem biased when written, but grammatically and/or linguistically incorrect.

Personally, our group struggled with the communicative aspect of the project, that is, on the wiki page itself. The problem with the need to discuss on the wiki page itself lies in the fact that so many other platforms for discussion and conversation not only exist in our lives but have been adopted by us, as part of our daily communicative experience. When off-hand chats that have been passed in discussion either face-to-face or on a “group chat” on the app Messenger (for example) are had, they are often not relayed onto the wiki page. This may simply be because as students we are not completely versed in the undertaking of group tasks (especially by relaying information through public discussion online) and/or it may be because the majority of students throughout their entire educative lives have learned to plan and then write articles/essays/stories by themselves (and thus either feel uncomfortable, or uneasy when having to share their thoughts and opinions and ask for peer-reviewing from others).

Our group, especially I believe, struggled to collaborate in any great long-thought-out process. We fell short of what was supposed and ended up working on our own wee essays which had been formed through the theorists we had read. Subsequently, we then struggled with creating a structure, but content-wise, felt like we had covered many bases. There are a few problems with combining online collaboration with face-to-face discussion in a project like this, firstly, that many people seem to be a lot more/less collaborative/discursive in their online nature than in their actual nature (and vice versa). This cannot be helped, of course, as human nature is what it is. Another problem is unearthed when actual content is compared to context. Those who don’t partake in discussion or don’t meet up face-to-face for any meetings end up writing their own versions of what they think, (for example) “Technology as an extension of self” is. This leaves a smaller group of individuals to try and piece together a structure and thus limits the term “collaboration” to its simplest of definitions. Of course, this re-telling is a biased personal recount of the problems faced with our groups’ project, but it seems that many challenges do exist when it comes to combining online wiki collaboration with face-to-face discussion (especially when a younger generation is using a platform and system which to them, may seem outdated and clunky).

The process of peer-reviewing online is one which offers many interpretations. Personally, I believe that often actual critical assessment (and thus progressive commentary) is overshadowed by politeness and a sense of ‘keeping the community friendly’. As someone who has partaken in this project and not as someone who regularly posts/reads/reviews the work of others through wiki, I can only talk from my personal experience. But is does seem that the process of peer-reviewing is cloaked, so to say, in personal gain. That is not to deem users of pretending to help each other out, but rather to deem them as half-heartedly inserting a comment here or there in some reference to said article/piece. I understand that in the subject of this project, marks are gained for interactions and engagement, and thus a certain hostility between peer-reviewers is created (again, biased point of view) but I can see light at the end of the tunnel, so to speak, when looking at wiki as a collaborative platform for those who are not being assessed in any way. Civility exists primarily among wiki users to help each other out, and the ability to edit/message on anyone’s page/article does allow for collaboration and peer-reviewing to not only be achieved but to be achieved with some success.

In theory, wiki works as a collaborative platform, between expert editors who are well versed in the process of collaboration through online wiki discussion and peer-reviewing. When reviewing its technology for discursive needs (especially in competition with the amount of communicative apps/websites around – although I am clearly aware that wiki is not primarily a communicative platform) wiki can seem a bit clunky. This may be due to it becoming ‘locked-in’, having been such a core platform for discussion that all future latched-on technologies have built themselves around its original state. If this is so, there is not much wiki can do. It will forever be one of the leading platforms of information sharing worldwide and will continue to offer discussions between users through a code-like input system, but irrespective of these points, as a platform for collaborative discussion and information sharing, wiki works. Bricedoesn&#39;tlikehighfives (discuss • contribs) 06:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #4
Hello Brice, your in-depth review of the wikibook project and our groups experiences with it proved to be both incredibly relatable and informative. The brief background to the platform of wikibooks provides the reader with a stable base with which to better understand the points you go on to make throughout the rest of the article. I agree with your views on how the wiki platforms work as i too feel collective approaches are imperative to creating the best possible outcome. When it comes to your description of our group's experiences, i again agree that we faced multiple hurdles when it came to the communication of our ideas and that the collaborative benefits may not have been as prominent as the could have been. Adding to your comments on the participation of others, i feel that perhaps if the page was being worked on by less people then maybe each member would have been able to make more sense of what was going on however this may be more representative of the less than ideal design of the wikibook site. Overall, your article provides several interesting accounts of your time on the wikibook project.MurrayHighFive (discuss • contribs) 00:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Bricedoesn'tlikehighfives, I found your reflective account to be insightful and a highly effective piece that made some excellent points. I particularly agree with the point of the group struggling to collaborate in "long-thought process" and that everybody did their own essay about theorists as this is something I feel could definitely be applied to my group on digital labour and was something I did myself. I found that for the large part that once we were given our roles for each section, we all got on with it ourselves and personally I felt we also struggled to create a structure for a long time. This is something I did not write about and in hindsight wish I had done. I did however write something similar to the point of that wiki platforms strive to create the best possible content through collaborative approaches. I felt that the discussion pages, once featuring some sense of structure, became a place where collaborative approaches and helping each other did lead to us managing to successfully collaborate but I am not sure if you felt the same way. Another point I failed to make but strongly agree with is the idea that peer-reviews are overshadowed by politeness, I often found myself sugar-coating what I was trying to say if I was at all critical in order to keep the idea of keeping the discussion page friendly and prevent any conflict. I find this is a very effective reflection on the Wiki experience and found myself agreeing with the points you made throughout your post Frkelly (discuss • contribs) 01:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Brice, this is a very interesting take on how your experienced Wikibooks and the challenges involved in the project. I too shared your struggles with regards to effective communication on the platform, and your point that critical assessment is often stunted due to the neccessity to be polite on the platform resonates greatly with me. The tiptoeing around the platform and careful management of every aspect made it difficult to express myself in the best possible way. Your assessement of your group is accurate from my experience, as I also shared in your exasperation with regards to communication on the platform. Your insight into how our group discussions led to more progress than anything posted on the talk pages is relatable to almost every group from what I've heard from other colleagues. Overall this is a strong assessemtn of the Wikibooks experience. You detail the issues that your have experienced with the platform, and present your arguments in a clear, concise manner. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 16:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)
The introduction section is incredibly well-written, and summarises some of the points which follow. I think that a concerted effort could have been made to narrativize the chapter before proceeding to the discussion proper. The overall structure that follows is well thought out, and evidences deliberation, delegation and timely organisation. Coverage of many of the salient issues surrounding the relationship between technology and self are included, although the overall feel of the chapter tends towards high-end description, rather than analysis, debate and argument.

That said, some of the sections are incredibly detailed and well written. Where theorists are listed, often it is the case that the coverage is characterised by a list of accomplishments next to some biographical and bibliographical detail – without going into discussion and application of the theories themselves. Here, you have managed to avoid the trap of biographical list, but the movement towards discussion and application of the theories could have been more detailed and applied to the issues under discussion in the chapter.

Some of the sections are really well written, but lack evidence of research – particularly in drawing from any peer-reviewed material, which is essential to helping establish a written argument. The whole section on “Forms of self-representation” for example, has large chucks of text that contain no reference to this kind of material (although, to be fair, there are some interwiki links apparent). Again drawing from this section as an example, there could have been more use made of interwiki links to other chapters.

This could have benefitted the chapter enormously. Such interwiki links could have been extended to include more reference to other chapters in the book, such as connecting your subsection on “distrust of AI” and “newspapers facing decline” to the chapters on Online/real-life divide and news, evidence and memory respectively. This could also be useful in relation to interwiki links on the same chapter: for example, the whole section on blog/online diaries – I would have thought this would follow on quite neatly from the discussion of Jill Walker Rettberg’s work, particularly in relation to her book Blogging! (This section didn’t have a single link or reference, and where the relevance to concepts in this chapter may be considered self-evident to the author, it is the author’s job to connect these ideas through argumentation).

Later sections (including the material on dating sites, gaming and video) are much stronger in this regard, and do all of the necessary things outlined above that are missing from other sections.

Overall, reasonably well put together, especially considering the number of total students working on the chapter.


 * Good. Your contribution to the book page gives a good brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a good range of concepts associated with your subject, and the effort to deliver critical definitions, drawing from relevant literature and scholarship, and your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is very much in evidence. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a good range and depth of subject matter.

Wiki Exercise Portfolio (Understanding weighted 30%)
Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is overall (and particularly in relation to Understanding and Engagement elements), that should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band, relative to the descriptor


 * 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.


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