User talk:CaitlinCarbury

Hello, I'm Caitlin and I'm using this page as part of an educational class project. This space is going to be used to register this. CaitlinCarbury (discuss • contribs) 13:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki exercise #1: What Makes a Good Wiki?
Much like most people my age I use social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter to share and obtain information. I find that these platforms are the most convenient in allowing me to talk with friends and share ideas on politics, fashion, entertainment etc. However, I do often find myself ‘lurking’ on social media sites, reading pages upon pages of information that I do not interact with. This is largely due to the fact that a lot of these platforms do not let you edit what appears on your feed, thus I end up looking at a friend, of a friend, of a friend’s 21st birthday pictures on Instagram. Whereas, with Wikipedia information I want can simply be typed into the search bar. Therefore, social media platforms can act as a distraction from my uni work and disrupt my workflow. In terms of the quality of information, I would argue to an extent that Wikipedia is more trustworthy and has better quality material than Facebook, as Wikipedia puts a collaborative injection of knowledge into specific subject matters, without relying solely on what one person thinks they know about a subject. However, as Wikipedia is a collaborative website the information on the site can be generated by anybody who wishes to edit an article, thus the information you find on the site can, and often is incorrect or vague. CaitlinCarbury (discuss • contribs) 20:58, 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 (and your comments) you are sometimes a little too descriptive, and I sense that you are capable of much more depth and discussion of ideas. Framing these ideas in relation to relevant reading and research will help significantly with this. 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 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). There does seem to be a tendency in what you are arguing to assume a clear distinction in terms of the "younger" generation. If you could engage with the notion of "digital divides" I think that this description could be extended into a really interesting argument.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you that Wikipedia as a site does appear to be more reliable for obtaining substantiated facts, especially due to it being difficult to alter yourself without proper backing up of what you want to change or add. I always think that if I wanted to chande a detail on Wikipedia it would be almost instantaneously corrected no matter what. But, at the same time, I agree that the information on Wikipedia could also be deemed unreliable and thus not accepted as an academic resource, like with Lanier being labelled as a filmmaker despite his efforts to change it himself. A collective group and shared knowledge might not always mean that something is correct. I also agree with your point on social media sites, I also spoke about this in my own post that I too am very much a consumer of content of social media where it is easy to get carried away looking at meaningless, mind-numbing content that you don't really gain much from. I also wrote something similar that this could be due to the interactivity and navigation of social media sites that encourage us to consume rather than to produce content. GemmaCampbell (discuss • contribs) 20:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Data Trails
I honestly don’t know how visible I am online. In terms of social media, I use Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, and Facebook –with my Facebook and Snapchat being the only “private” profiles of the four. “Private” because I’m not entirely sure how private, a “private” profile is. The majority of my information on my Facebook profile may be invisible to the general public, but I’m certain that Facebook as a company probably know more about my identity than I think. I am also aware of the privacy issues within Snapchat, with talk about the company collecting every photo ever sent on the app, which I suppose should scare me, but giving personal information away seems like quite a nonchalant activity, not only within the “information society”, but Britain especially.

Britain is one of the most surveilled countries in the world and we don’t seem to mind. A YouGov survey from 2016 investigated how Britons felt about the increase in investigatory powers that police and intelligence agencies have. The survey showed that almost half of those asked weren’t too bothered. In fact, 49% were in favour of supporting increased security measures.

I think that this attitude of not really caring how much data the Government collects on us is because we’re not aware of how much information they actually collect and what they use this information for. Perhaps the reason I don’t really know how visible I am online is because I don’t really care. I feel that my information isn’t valuable to government agencies and that whatever they do find will not be particularly interesting. However, to think this would be very naive as I am aware that information is valuable to all sorts of people in all sorts of ways. I can see this especially through how much Google appears to track me.

I am continuously surprised by how much Google seems to know about not only my identity but where I am, where I go, what transport I use, were I live and where I work. Recently I used Bluetooth to play some music in the car on my way to the supermarket, once I had finished my shopping I got an alert from Google telling me exactly where my dad had parked his car. I didn’t sign up for this service, so I was quite freaked out by how they managed to not only track my personal whereabouts but the exact location of a vehicle I was in prior. I’m becoming increasingly unaware of my visibility not just on social media sites, but to massive companies and organisations. Every single thing I do using Google is being tracked and collected, for example, what I look at online, now appears in tailored adverts just for me. Google collects so much data from me without me even realising, making me question just how much of my personal information is available to those who are willing to look for it. 86.136.26.119 (discuss) 15:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments


 * I take it that this is you, writing this ? GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs)


 * ~(comment) Hello Caitlin, I enjoyed reading your discussion. That’s interesting what you were saying about the Yougov survey, I’m sure I read the same report last year. Why do you think most people don’t mind their information being shared?
 * I agree with you and I think that I fall into the same category of not really caring that the government has my information. I haven’t really thought too much about it until now, but I think if you have nothing to hide then there’s nothing really to be worried about. Although there are terrible stories which would contradict that argument such as a few years ago, when the missing teens phone was hacked which lead her parents to believe she was still alive. So perhaps there are boundaries.


 * When Edward Snowden released the Government’s secret files detailing on how the Government sweep phone records and social media information, it was really no surprise, people seemed to already know that the Government did that and Snowden just confirmed it. Do you think Snowden was right to reveal the Governments documents and reveal their secrets to us?


 * That is quite scary that google tracked your location through Bluetooth and where to find your dad’s car, was that through an app or google maps? It sounds like the start of an episode of black mirror!
 * Would you say features like google tracking you and then trying to help you is useful or is it getting a bit too personal? I personally use google maps to find my way around and feel I would be lost without it now, but I like to choose when I use it and feel that would be a little intrusive.

Jackhand1 (discuss • contribs) 02:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Jack, sorry for such a late reply. I think people don't mind because they think that it is predominantly Government agencies who are tracking our information, and so there's that weird sense of trust in the authorities despite the fact that they are effectively spying on you.


 * I think that Governments should be transparent, so yes I do think he was right to release the information. However, I would argue that it hasn't really changed much.


 * I think that Google track your location for the likes of Maps and to give recommendations etc, so I reckon they just had that information available to them. I do find apps like Google Maps incredibly useful, however I willingly give them that information to do one task, not several which I did not ask for. CaitlinCarbury (discuss • contribs) 19:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Caitlin, I also made the point in my own post that I don’t truthfully knows how visible I am online and I’m glad that other people seem to share the same idea as me. I also agree with and like the point you made about how even though we can have “private” profiles, the companies themselves can store and keep track of our information. I too noted about the controversy a couple years ago when it was revealed that snapchat often store the snaps we send to our friends which previously we may have believed to have been erased completely. I like one of your main points that as a society a lot of people even seem uncaring that their information can be stored and viewed by the companies themselves. Do you still also feel this way after your experience with google tracking your location?


 * I haven’t seen the youGov poll myself but I found the statistics you’ve written about very interesting and have made me reflect on my own thoughts about living in one of the most watch societies; it is actually the case that most of the people I know in my life would probably also not take too much issue with their information being so readily available. You made the point that you probably don’t mind these companies storing your information because you don’t feel it will be of use or anyone will actually utilise it, but as I mentioned in my own post with the introduction of the investigatory powers bill a couple years ago it is still, at least to me, almost intrusive that many agencies still hold this power. I also agree with your point about being unaware of just how visible we are online, I also made the point that often we engage with sites passively and click “yes” to things we haven’t really read through which could allow our information to be collected. GemmaCampbell (discuss • contribs) 17:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Gemma, thank you for your comment! After that experience I can't say that I feel that much different. It shocked me, and weirded me out but I still feel somewhat indifferent to them having that information. It's more of my inability to care that is more interesting to me. I wonder why I, much like a lot of people are so nonchalant about my information being so readily available to big companies.CaitlinCarbury (discuss • contribs) 19:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Katie, I really enjoyed reading this because I agree with a lot of what you're saying as I to use the same social media platforms as you avidly. To what extent 'private' is actually 'private' is a debatable topic because you're right- it seems that despite my Facebook profile being private, somehow Facebook has access to all sorts of data from me and even the people they display in my 'people you may know' section tend to be people I have physically met not long before they start appearing which actually freaks me out quite a deal! Of course cookies contribute a lot to this as well and why Facebook advertise products I have searched on Google.


 * It's undeniable Facebook knows a lot more about us that we may realise they do, I agree with that completely- quite a scary thought. I did not know that rumour about Snapchat and although that should probably worry me quite a deal, I still feel because of this "information society" we live in we will still continue to act nonchalantly because it is already so far embedded into our daily lives we may not think twice about the dangers of it.
 * In the chapter "A Networked Self" by Zizi Papacharissi in the book "Look At Us Now: Collective Narcissism in College Student Facebook Galleries" by Papachrissi and Mendelson, a very interesting study is carried out which looks at how college students use Facebook and how they present themselves and it was concluded that they “present the desired image of oneself” and that “presentation of personal photos is highly ritualised.” I really agree with this point and believe that that is why no matter how private we may try and make out accounts for those that don’t know us personally, we still make an effort of making sure what we are viewing is of a decent standard for anyone that may be looking at us even though apparently we don’t want them looking at us by making our profiles private… perhaps really we are contradicting ourselves and already know we are visible always?
 * You’re right, I genuinely don’t think the majority of us care about how watched we are online and hence why there’s a high percentage of people wanting to support increased security measures. Maybe we are being naïve and believe that it is a positive thing how monitored we are online or maybe it just is a positive thing and we shouldn’t doubt it, especially in this society we live in. I too don’t think my information is that valuable to the government- if you’ve got nothing to hide like me then why would I care about my information being monitored after all? However yes this may be us being overly passive because we really don’t know who is using our information and what for. We just rely so much on Google I don’t think we even realise how much it gets from us! Tamoloriiii (discuss • contribs) 22:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Tamoloriiii, sorry for the delay, I read the study you're speaking about and it did make me refelct on what my intentions were online. Do I want to be completely private? Don't I? I mean what's the difference between my facebook being private, but my Twitter being public? Both ultimately have similar facts and information about myself. So in a way maybe I do want to be seen. CaitlinCarbury (discuss • contribs) 19:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Your discussion here is quite interesting and really does make me think about all the different ways in which I am 'visable' in the online world. From reading a couple of other posts it is clear to me that the idea of 'privacy' is very different to different people. For the most part, we can choose which information we share on different social media platforms but, as you have pointed out, there are many other ways in which we leave data trails that we are not aware of. Similarly, I agree with your notion that people just don't care enough. Perhaps if we knew more about what this information could be used for then maybe we would have a different view on this concern.

Rachel Howie (discuss • contribs) 14:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 3: Information Overload
There is without a doubt, a large quantity of information out there. However, it does not always take the form of distraction. When I go online, I tend to look at the information that is relevant to me. I think that information, especially in the digital age, is portrayed as something chaotic and overwhelming when this is not necessarily the case. Of course, there are times when the quantity of information makes it hard to locate the relevant information, but I would say that’s less of a distraction and more of an inconvenience.

This being said, I am not going to deny that I don’t get distracted by the large amounts of information that is readily available to me. My phone is almost constantly on me, and I can’t remember the last time I went outside without it. In her TED Talks video, Sherry Turkle says that “we are tempted by machines that offer companionship”, and I think this is particularly true in terms of my phone usage. Whenever I am out alone, I take comfort in knowing that my phone is with me, I use the device to feel less alone, but in doing so I avoid any chance of human interaction with the strangers surrounding me. Sometimes I’ll take my phone out when waiting on buses, or walking through streets and stare at a blank screen. I’ll go in and out of applications creating a paradox that makes me feel less alone while actually isolating myself from my surroundings.

This withdrawal from the “real” may be due to the large amounts of information I can find online without having to partake in human interaction. Danah Boyd talks about how we assume information will always be available to us, which I can concur. Whenever I don’t know something I pull out my phone and Google it, I assume that anything I want to know will be there at a click of a button. Having recently went abroad, I found that due to a lack of roaming data I could not use Google Maps to find locations, which threw me into the real world of having to ask people for directions and advice. This experience made me realise how heavily I do rely on the “virtual” in order to live in the “real”.

In trying to deal with the distractions of information, I usually place my phone away from me and try and focus on what is in front of me. In terms of my workflow with the Wikibook Project, I must admit that I have been slow to start. However, now that my colleagues and I are getting to grips with what the Project truly entails our workflow has begun to improve through communication with each other and research online. CaitlinCarbury (discuss • contribs) 20:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 Comments 

Hi Caitlin, I really like your starting point. In my own post I only really acknowledged the wealth of information the internet has to offer as nothing but a distraction but after reading your post I’ve re-evaluated that thought. You gave an interesting perspective that challenged the assumption put forward by the question which saw information online as overwhelming distractive and disruptive to any workflow, so I like that you pointed out a possible oppositional argument. I also made similar points about my phone usage as you as well. It can become habitual to carry our phones around with us, knowing that any piece of information we wish to seek is at our fingertips. I also like that you pointed out how our phones can be distractions of our own doings in using it in social situations in order to entertain ourselves, maybe rather than seeing the internet as something innately distractive it’s better to think about why we feel the need to utilize it as a distraction in certain circumstances. Your point on relying on our phones in the assumption that any information we need will be readily available to us is also something I can relate to well; the ability to web search, at least for me, has become so normalised that it’s often my first thought when I seek to find out something I do not know the answer to. I too, try to place my phone away from me or turn off any notifications which would distract me from my work at the time but I do find it to be quite difficult especially if its for an extended period, however there are also times I forget to take my phone around with me and maybe leave it in another room for almost a whole day. Sometimes I will want nothing but to check my phone when we I am aware of its presence even in the back of my mind, yet sometimes I forget completely. Again this probably comes down to situation we are in. GemmaCampbell (discuss • contribs) 22:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Excercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
The Wikibook project was a new experience for me, the platform was something that I had never interacted with before. At the beginning, I found it to be terribly confusing and really struggled with the navigation of the site. It took me a while to figure out how to get to grips with adding in extras such as links, photos and videos to my posts; I found this to be particularly difficult as it resembled code, which I could not wrap my head around. Nonetheless, through engagement with my Wikibook team, I picked up on a few text skills such as how to bullet point, add headers, insert photos, and reference. Thus, as I posted more entries, and interacted with my classmate’s posts I found my ability to use the site improved. Furthermore, I feel that Wiki contributions are more complicated than contributions made to social media sites. This did throw me off, but once I got to grips with the text templates I felt although my contributions were more substantial than that of social media contributions as I took more time over getting them right.

I do think that my understanding of the topics that arose in the lectures was further developed by the debates that I interacted with on Wikibooks. Reading my classmates thoughts and opinions on topics deepened the discussion and opened up new arguments that I may not have thought of. I enjoyed commenting on other students work as it allowed me to reflect on my own posts; I noticed that my individual Wiki posts were slightly boring and bland in comparison to some of my classmates work as I did not figure out how to add in photos until the collaborative Wikibook stage. Moreover, in order to improve my posts, I could have interacted with a wider range of readings and online resources. Despite this I feel like I did interact with the questions enough to portray my understanding each week, especially when commenting on other students posts –I believe this was my strong point. However, when it came to the collaborative Wikibook itself, I found the discussion page to be a bit inconvenient. I do not believe that the Wiki format is efficient in providing an easy and clear way to communicate –especially when you want a quick and smooth back and forth conversation. I found that the discussion pages made it particularly awkward to co-ordinate a whole book with several other people, as I would actively have to log on to the site and scroll through the discussion page to ensure I hadn’t missed any information my team members had shared. Although I could receive and send notifications, myself or my teammates would have to be online to receive them, meaning that we could be waiting hours for a reply. I think in order to improve the flow of communication, it would be really beneficial if there was a system in place that notified Wiki users when they had a notification through another platform. This could possibly be achieved via email so that conversational progress could be made in a quicker and smoother manner.

Despite the awkward communication barriers, the project went well and we all completed our individual tasks and helped each other out as much as possible. If I had more time, I would have liked to go over the whole book and try and make the topics flow better as I think there was some overlap -which would naturally be the case when dealing with a project of this nature. Moreover, I think the section I added to the book was as best as I could produce under the time constraint. It has its weaknesses, I believe I could have furthered my arguments in places with additional research. However, I'm happy with the outcome.

All in all, I believe that I benefited from this experience in that I learned how Wikibooks operates while also adding depth to my understanding of the module through discussion with my fellow students. However, for a site that prides itself on being a collaborative project, the collaborative aspect of the module (that being the Wikibook) was the hardest part to manage, and so I am unsure whether or not Wikibooks truly is the best place to create and contribute to as a group. CaitlinCarbury (discuss • contribs) 18:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Hi Caitlin. After reading through your post, it's obvious that we shared many of the same experiences. One of the parts that stands out to me is the mention of "awkward communication" - I felt that I had the same problem in some instances, which was frustrating because any problems we had could probably be addressed much easier face-to-face. Despite this, I share your feelings in that the wikibook exercise was a rewarding experience when it came to understanding topics and the concepts as a whole. As you mention towards the beginning of your entry, I too found the user inter-face incredibly clunky and awkward to use, but through time and patience, expanded my knowledge of how to use the site (e.g. markups). However, I do agree that wikibooks and the likes are difficult to get your head around to start with, with this potentially being way many people stay far away from the collaboration aspect of the sites. Helizacarr (discuss • contribs) 00:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Interesting Read! I understand your difficulties with the Wikibooks platform, especially in the markup language. The fact that is resembled code made it terribly confusing at first, and unfortunately I was never very good at computing. I definitely found however that my fellow users on the discussion pages helped me come to grips with this, especially being able to view their edits and emulate their code. (Is that cheating?)

I also agree in that the discussion page at times was inconvenient, especially with its layout. I also found the way of interacting odd. Although editing the articles to make contributions made sense, 'editing' the discussion page like an article seems odd, and strikes me as an inefficient way to communicate as well. However, as the group became more accustomed to the formatting, it took shape and started to become a lot easier to navigate.

Finally, I agree that the collaboration aspect was initially tough to manage. I found the face to face communication easiest, as opposed to the discussion pages when sharing information. However, I think that may be down to us being new and inexperienced users. Wikibooks, and Wikipedia as well definitely seem to benefit from their layouts, and have become very successful. I think there is something to be said about the way they operate. Dcunningham1017 (discuss • contribs) 23:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with your comments about communication being a problem. I found the discussion page to be a jumble of information that was hard to keep track of. Due to this, the main difficulty I had was trying to work together with everyone else who was assigned the same topic. Although meeting face to face with my group did help significantly, there were still a lot of other people working on the chapter that I have not met in person. I felt that when I was commenting, only a couple of people were responding and similarly I was constantly missing conversations in which I could have contributed to. Again this is due to the unpleasant format of the discussion page and upon reflection Wikibooks is perhaps not the most efficient platform for working with other people online. However, these barriers did make me think a lot more in depth about ways in which I could efficiently communicate with others and this is something that I would not usually do with other assignments. Communication is definetley an important skill to master and so I have found the wikibook project to be very useful in developing these skills. Rachel Howie (discuss • contribs) 14:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I really like how you ended with criticism of wikibooks and the wiki system in general. I agree that the collaborative system on this site is difficult to keep a handle on and that it may not be the best format for collaborative efforts. That the system of communication could be improved is certainly a great point, since I too would have loved to get emails whenever I got a notification from the site. I also think some sort of chat system could be included for ease of communication, so long as contributions are marked down somewhere and the things shared upon it go towards completion of the overall book. I do wish that we all had more time to finish this project, but the unfortunate reality is that most of us needed to get a kick in the butt from Greg in order to get working on this thing at all, so we all should have been able to get a start on our work much sooner. I'm sorry to hear that you didn't think much of your particular section, because I thought it was very well researched. We did a nice job on this. ZachIsWack (discuss • contribs) 11:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

&#8593; Back to top

Content (weighted 20%)
The introductory remarks at the beginning of this chapter are quite visual and alert the reader to the image of a doubling – a theme which is implied throughout the chapter in terms of information flows and how they are regulated through both connectivity and user behaviour. Very interesting, and sets up the narrative of the chapter as a whole.

This narrativising work is extended into the accounts of Chomsky, Adorno and others – a well written and concise summary of each approach and some critical commentary included. I think that more could be made of making interwiki links to various relevant sections in this, and other, chapters (especially, perhaps, chapters on News, Evidence and Memory in Online Communications, the section on private sphere linking to Privacy in a Digital Age, or certainly there are whole sections in the Digital Labour chapter that are of immediate relevance here.) The narrativisation is excellent on the section involving the work of Pariser, and extending the Five Filters to Five Data Points.

Some really useful work on personalisation, and excellent coverage of information flows. These sections feature evidence of wider reading and research, as references to specific peer-reviewed materials to substantiate the argument. The discussion of data trails is good – however, it doesn’t attain the same level of criticality as these other examples (although some references to academic sources are used). This section is also an example where the text-heavy nature means that it’s fairly heavy going 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.

Media is already a plural term.

Some more joined-up thinking could have extended and beefed up the arguments in relation to the section on “Control over what we see”. There’s a subsection on “filter bubbles” here which seems to repeat already-mentioned material. A wikilink to other parts of the chapter where this is already discussed would probably have done just as well as these few sentences, which sort of appear as an anomaly in this section.

The glossary is really useful – not quite exhaustive, but good for quick reference purposes. Use of interwiki links in here would have been useful. The references section again evidences research, reading and sharing of resources, although my feeling is that this could have been extended significantly, especially through looking at what other chapters were writing about, and making the connections between there and the arguments here more explicit. Some of the formatting seems to go awry in the middle, so a little more joined-up thinking and a little more effort in presentation there would have been useful.


 * 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)
 * 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