User talk:CammeyNotCameron

Wiki Exercise #1: What Makes A Good Wiki?
My name is Cammey. I am a 21 year old Digital Media and Culture student at the University of Stirling. I use a variety of different social media platforms daily. These include Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat. I can gather a lot of information from these platforms, however the information absorbed differs massively than such from Wikipedia. I tend to use Wikipedia regularly whenever I am trying to find basic facts and details, but I have never edited or commented on any existing pages or topics in my experiences. This contrasts to my activity on my other commonly used platforms as not only do I ‘lurk’, but also post, update and interact frequently.

Wikipedia is a very formal platform for contributing to concepts and is a lot more professional and precise method than using other social media platforms or blogs, which are more commonly used to share personal experiences, memories, opinions and interests, rather than organised, structured concise information. While social media websites such as Facebook are more aimed at socialising with friends and relatives, Wikipedia can be used to collaborate with potentially anyone with an account, that hold the anonymity of only a username.

Wikipedia pages are usually clear, and consist of mainly necessary information, however due to the availability for any user to edit and comment on a page, data can be unreliable and false. While some of these errors may be genuine mistakes, others may be done as a joke or to ‘troll’ users. A good Wiki is one that backs up every fact, opinion or idea with sources or evidence. While the reader should never reference directly from Wikipedia, they can follow the bibliography to further sites and carry out additional research. CammeyNotCameron (discuss • contribs) 05:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wiki Exercise #1


Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is in relation to Understanding and Engagement elements, it should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band overall.


 * Excellent. Among other things, these entries will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. They will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. They will address the assignment tasks in a thoughtful way. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts. They will be informed by serious reading and reflection, are likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.


 * 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, it's a bit plain. 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). In addition, in one of your comments, you touched upon the issue of wikis as predominantly public domain platforms, whereas at least there is a semblance of privacy relating to social media profile management. This is very interesting, and could form part of some interesting contribs from you in project work. Lots of reading available on that issue too - privacy is a key subject area for recent scholarship. Keep this up!

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2 - How Visible Are You Online?
I believe that it is near impossible to be invisible online. Social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter have become so popular in the contemporary online community that almost everybody who interacts online, has an account. Personally, I use Facebook predominantly for messaging friends and fellow students for organizational purposes or just for general chit-chat. Occasionally I’ll upload photos of my experiences to share with my friends but I never tend to voice my strong opinions, or let people know exactly what I’m thinking throughout the day (everybody has that friend!). This, for me, is generally for privacy, and while I don’t mind ‘friends’ looking through photos and such, I would rather people I do not know don’t have access to my photos or information therefore I have my privacy setting set accordingly. However, you are still not invisible. Profile pictures are always accessible, as is my age, birthday, job, school and more. This is based on my experience with a private profile but I know a lot of people who have a fairly public profile and a lot more data is available for anybody to see. While people may nosily, but innocently ‘Facebook stalk’ a profile which is usually a brief peruse, others can easily spend more time and actually find out a lot of information about particular people. Employers have been known to look through potential employees’ social media profiles to get more of an idea of who they would possibly hire. If somebody has certain unattractive information on display, the company could potentially dismiss their opportunity of a job.

I also use Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat, which are different as I do not share nearly as much personal material on them. On Twitter, I haven’t even shared my full name. While I definitely post more on Twitter than I do on Facebook, I rarely tweet anything personal and tend to post random things that I find funny or interesting. Therefore somebody ‘stalking’ my Twitter profile would learn a lot less about me than they would on my Facebook profile, yet I am still not invisible. There’s an option to protect your tweets so that only your followers can read your tweets, but still, anybody can see your profile. CammeyNotCameron (discuss • contribs) 18:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #2
Hi there, I have a very similar approach to Facebook as you where I just use it for private messaging with the occasional post about a holiday or an achievement I'm proud of. You mentioned not voicing strong opinions which I can relate to as I would never post a long rant about something on Facebook, but I would be more inclined to do so on Reddit where the audience is a bunch of strangers. Users who make 'throwaway' accounts to post something increases their anonymity but whatever they comment is still visible for anyone to see, it's just much less likely to be seen by a close friend or family member. This could arguably be harmful when people take advantage of their anonymity to post hateful comments, but it can also be a sense of release for people like those on r/offmychest or r/confession who might be bottling something up. --EmilymDaniel (discuss • contribs) 17:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey! An intriguing comment on anonymous profile on sites such as Reddit. People might, as you said, find it easier to confess things or declare opinions if the readers don’t know who the poster’s identity is. However, they still won’t be invisible as somebody could still find out a lot about you by clicking on your Reddit profile and reading all of your other posts and comments. Also, if you were to write such controversial or threatening comments on sites such as Reddit, your IP could be tracked and the police could get involved and identify you. CammeyNotCameron (discuss • contribs) 11:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed when reading your piece that you described using social media platforms on private settings, in an attempt to make your information feel more secure/private as you believe that it is nearly impossible to be invisible online. Despite agreeing with you on the most part in that I feel people generally have to exist online to get by in todays society, for example a lot of job applications nowadays only exist online. In fact, you even need an email to order of of some takeaways! However, do you think that someone could get by a little harder, but safer if they removed themselves from online platforms as best they could (for example deleting all accounts and existing absent of the web)? Also I was curious that you discussed the concept of employers monitoring clients Facebook. From this I was wondering, do you think it is wrong for employers to be able to check their employees in this way as it is an invasion of privacy; or do you think that employers have the right to check up on employees online as their employees online are simply just displaying an extension of themselves anyone? As you put it, its almost impossible to be invisible online today, so does this mean that to really know someone you have to know them online? I know of a person that actually lost their job recently as they phoned into work ill and their employer found photos of this person at a running event that same day (so in this sense the online almost represented a more realistic impression of the person that 'real life' itself, unfortunately...)
 * 1) --Campbell Wallace (discuss • contribs) 18:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I don’t think removing yourself from social media wouldn’t help you at all. I know there are people who have never had online profiles and get by just fine. However as someone who relies on sites such as Facebook for organisation purposes (for example) I don’t think it would be beneficial to me if I wasn’t wanting to be found by potential employers. It’s definitely safer but not worth it. I understand why employers check their employees profiles as at the end of the day, they have the right to know the person who represents their company. If they were posting offensive and controversial content, the company might not want them, I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong but I think it depends on the harshness or the decision. One of my friends also lost his job, because of a photo on his profile that was uploaded years before even being in the job. In his case, it was just a bit of fun; nobody complained or spoke badly of it and he was good at his job and everyone believed it was a ridiculous and unfair decision to fire him.

I think everyone acts different online than they do in person, definitely. I don’t believe many people’s online identities show a realistic representation of who they really are, but who they want to be identified as. An interesting question to think about though! CammeyNotCameron (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Your thoughts on privacy settings on Facebook particularly are interesting. I agree that you can never be fully invisible online as people can still see your basic details when you view someone's page. Do you not think that the details that are on show to people, although they actually allow people to identify whether the person you have searched is in fact the person you are looking for, they are often the very details that you want to hide for people that you don't know? If someone had gone onto your profile to collect details to commit identity fraud, your privacy settings don't actually help as your full name, date of birth are still on show. You briefly talk about twitter and snapchat. Do you feel that these platforms are a lot more secure in ways of personal information only or do you think social interactions within these sites are also more safe and secure. The age restriction of 13 on snapchat, I think, can say something about the ways in which the app is used in general. SuzanneClark22 (discuss • contribs) 12:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * An interesting thought! I think on Facebook, personal information is almost necessary when meeting loads of people at University or when working for a company, for example. If you meet potential friends in person and go to add them on Social media, their photos might not be a realist representation of what they looked like in person. This might be difficult to find the correct person if there is no information, but if the information was provided (University of…./Works at….) then you could identify them as the person you are looking for much more efficiently.

I don’t believe Twitter and Snapchat are more secure in terms of revealing personal information. Ultimately, it is how you choose to present your profile. While someone might display a lot of personal information on their profiles, that is their choice and not the security of the site. It is my personal preference to not reveal much personal data on these sites. CammeyNotCameron (discuss • contribs) 12:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3 - Information Overload
There is a vast amount of information available online in today’s contemporary society. Especially with today’s technology, people with smartphones, tablets or laptops can access an extreme amount of data almost instantly. If we were told twenty years ago the extent of how technology has advanced to assist us in obtain information, we would have laughed. This can be a good thing but it can also be disadvantageous. Benefits include the concept that we can look up facts and find out potentially anything we want in a matter of seconds. We can look up ebooks when studying, rather than having to haul ourselves to a library or even purchase the book! I think everyone will agree that the internet can save us a lot of time, effort and money. However, there is so much irrelevant information circling online. When searching for relevant academic resources for an essay, you may have to go through five or six documents until you find one suitable for your topic. Or social media - you might find some great content on there - but only after scrolling past so much rubbish that is completely uninteresting, recycled, or just generally terrible content. Yet, many of us (I know I do) find ourselves completely preoccupied with this information. I will constantly scroll through multiple social media platforms and read through hundreds of unappealing posts as a form of procrastination when I am supposed to be doing work. It’s because it’s just so easy to obtain as it’s right there and there is no effort involved. I tend to procrastinate often and it takes many forms, not just browsing social medias - I will find something (anything) if it stops me from doing work sometimes.

However, when I am in the mood to work and am motivated to not get distracted from all this information floating around me, I like to isolate myself from it. I leave my flat, sit at a quiet table at the library - an atmosphere where I need to put my phone on silent and get my head down with things.

I quite enjoy the concept of a group wiki project. If this was an independent task, I would probably put off doing the work as long as I could. However, as I am in a big group of people, I am more motivated to contribute often and produce a good wiki page. This means keeping in contact with all my group members on the discussion page so that I don’t have a negative impact on their contribution to the page. When contributing to the page, I find myself quite free of distractions and tend to work relatively well towards it. I am definitely managing the workload for this project much better than other projects for my other modules, where I have let the work build up rather than work little and often. I believe our group is working well together. After just recently meeting two other big deadlines for my other modules, I feel I commit more time into this Wiki project. CammeyNotCameron (discuss • contribs) 02:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #3
Hi Cammey, Your comments about the internet being both a help and a hindrance to getting work done is definitely true for most people I would think. It seems we can not have the good quality information online without also having the rubbish and distractions, so it is up to us as individuals to try not to procrastinate, which is easier said than done. Even before writing these wiki comments, I found it quite difficult to not procrastinate on other websites, but the internet is not the only contributing factor, as in an effort to not do work I also closed my laptop and lay on my bed staring into space for a while. So sometimes it is not always the internet's fault for why we don't get work done. As you mentioned, sometimes the only way to get work done is being in the right frame of mind and right environment, like the library. I agree that the fact the the Wikibook project is a group task means you are more spurred on to contribute with the other members of the group as you can see what they are contributing and don't want to fall behind in comparison. GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 13:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for your comment. you're definitely right about the online world not being the only distraction we have. That being said, I don't think we can blame the internet for procrastinating - we can only blame ourselves as it is our choice to do so. Glad to hear you're not having trouble with the group wiki project. Good luck with it! CammeyNotCameron (discuss • contribs) 10:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi I enjoyed reading your post! I feel the same about distractions - if I'm going to procrastinate I don't need technology, I will find a way! I like the library too to reduce distractions, but also as you said, if I'm in the mood to focus then I'll be able to ignore most things that distract me. I agree that the Wikibooks project is definitely better as a group project than if it were individual. It still does seem quite daunting just now, but with so many people contributing it's comforting that everyone can work together. - Katienotcatriona (discuss • contribs) 15:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you! The fact that we can get distracted so easy (by anything) sounds quite bad but it's reassuring that he do have a metaphorical switch that we can trigger when we actually want or need to get work done. I agree that the group wiki project is quite daunting! I've never worked in a group so big! I look at it as a positive thing though as more people = more work done and the better it looks (that's how it works, right?) I'm somewhat looking forward to seeing the final result. CammeyNotCameron (discuss • contribs) 10:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4 - Wikibook Project Reflective Account
After completing the Group Wikibook Project on Living in a Connected Word: Privacy in a Digital Age, I have mixed feelings of satisfaction and relief. I am fairly proud of the page that our group produced. It looks like a proper, detailed wikipedia page that somebody researching this topic would find interesting and valuable. However, it took a lot of work; planning through engagement with other group members (most of which I had, and still have not met), carrying out sufficient research on multiple topics, edit add and improve other people’s sections as well as learning the ins and outs of Wikibooks and its language. This meant I was glad to finish the project.

During the project, I spent most of my collaboration with group members online. I only met up with my subgroup of five people (Team Camz) in person to discuss our plans. However, I didn’t discuss arrangements with the other twelve members personally. I didn’t even message them on Facebook. All other conversations about procedures were held online, on the Wikibook discussion page. While I found this manageable to deal with, I feel that some people were writing perhaps too often and unnecessarily in order to emphasise their engagement. I understand why they did it, and it did work out as it made plans crystal clear, but it didn’t really feel natural. I know for a fact, if a discussion page didn’t exist, and the plans were deliberated in person, things would go very differently. This is because people interact with each other differently online than they do in person. Someone could appear full of ideas, and subliminally take the role of a team leader on the discussion page. However in person, with classmates they are not familiar with, they might hold back on ideas and think about how they represent themselves more.

While I found that though it was a lot of work and overwhelming at times, I thoroughly enjoyed working as a team. Some members were much easier to work with than others but our final production came together (in my opinion) very nicely. And while gaining skills on how Wikibooks works, I have also learned a lot about not only my topics, but other people’s as well.

In comparison to social medias, I would not go on Wikipedia when I’m bored and I want to aimlessly browse through other people’s statuses, shared photos and videos - like I do on Facebook and Twitter. These social media websites are (I believe) a lot more informal compared to Wikipedia. I found Wikibooks to be a lot more established, academic and formal.

Comments on Wiki Exercise #4


Hi, I also found that this was a difficult project that required constant maintenance. Although I did also find that the production of a full Wikibook brought a sense of pride and relief as It is good to feel that you have been a part of creating something that a professional may find interesting. I agree that the engagement part of this project could become a nascence as at times I feel people were wiring just because they had to in order to acquire engagement marks. --Campbell Wallace (discuss • contribs) 18:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Glad to hear I wasn’t the only one! I think perhaps a lot of people may agree. Constant maintenance is something that I wouldn’t normally enjoy. If this were an essay, I’d most definitely leave it all to do in one go (probably last minute) whereas in this wikibook project I liked the fact I could do little pieces here and there, little and often.

Hey I feel the same as you about many of these things. I know what you mean about the mixed feelings once the project was finished, perhaps because we didn't have to submit it like we would an essay it doesn't feel as officially done to me. I know what you mean about engagement for the sake of engagement. Because I met up with my group in person and talked to them on Facebook more than on the discussion page we tried to update the discussion page but then it seemed silly to just repeat ourselves. Overall I also feel very mixed - I feel like I've learnt a lot but I also found it very stressful. I also agree about the difference between social media and Wiki*media - I found that I was never really sure how informal I could be on the discussion pages even though they're not as official as the actual book pages. - Katienotcatriona (discuss • contribs)

Yes, a lot of the discussion seemed forced and almost rehearsed. Makes sense to do so though! I was the same with you on not knowing the formality of the discussion page at first. Initially, I was being very formal until I saw other groups having a conversation as if they were talking to friends (still staying on topic, of course). This encouraged me to do the same, which I’m pretty sure is the best way for this kind of planning. CammeyNotCameron (discuss • contribs) 10:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you make an interesting point when you say that this sort of group work is different from say, a group presentation, which is fully to do with confidence around other people. I feel that the online nature of this allows some more introverted people to have their say more within groups which is good for their input of work. However, did you not find that the ways in which this was mainly online quite challenging when you were not able to talk physically with members of other groups working on the same chapter?? I thought that this posed a challenge in the actual content making within the chapter as it may have been unclear what each person had to write SuzanneClark22 (discuss • contribs) 08:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That is true. The online discussion process may have been more beneficial to introverted people however some people may have found that more difficult and could potentially thrive in a personal face-to-face discussion when planning group work. I like to do both, so yes - it was quite frustrating at times not being able to express ideas properly in person, especially because the lack of notification when I submit something to the discussion. This meant not everybody would see my new contribution. Face-to-face conversations allow you to express ideas, and make sure everybody understands your point.

Content (weighted 20%)
The introduction section here is a little brief, however it draws its strength from being well written, in an accessible language. In addition to this, very usefully, each section has been laid out in bullet point format, with a very brief summative sentence for each section. The sections themselves represent wide coverage of many of the main issues surrounding privacy in contemporary popular culture.

However, of particular use here – and very much a strength of the chapter as a whole, is the section that draws together the issues raised here, and applies these to other areas of the wikibook as a whole, explicitly making more of the platform than would otherwise have been, had the groups decided to write this chapter in isolation. To be clear, the execution of this section could have been better – greatly improved through more systematic use of interwiki links to draw attention to the specific pages, sections and issues from the various pages in the wikibook which you were commenting on. Another specific section here that could have been improved is the section on celebrity vlogging. Whereas it is true that there hasn’t been a lot written on this (yet – there is a growing interest in the scholarship, and we can expect much more appearing in the short term), it should have been acknowledged that the scholarship on celebrity culture as a whole is very well established, and that most of the issues raised in relation to YouTubers (e.g. “the price of fame”, privacy issues, and the implied “fair game” logic) are covered in existing debates on celebrity. All that said, the potential for this last section was recognised and other parts of it fully engaged with existing research in the field, and therefore is rewarded.

Structure-wise, the chapter seems to hang together fairly well – the definitions section at the beginning, whilst by no means exhaustive, gives the reader a sense of the subject matter under discussion early on, and also some useful working definitions of key terms used. Some typo errors and inconsistency of formatting appear dotted throughout, but these are not the norm for this chapter. Odd inclusion of bibliographical material of theorists, but no discussion or application their ideas in that section (especially in the case of Fuchs, where it lists a few of his research association and academic achievements. A little bit more joined-up work would have improved on this section enormously.

The unusual step of including a survey and posting the results here is an extremely useful one. Something that absolutely HAS to be thought through in ALL future work is that if one is conducting a survey (even if for demonstration purposes, as included here) or indeed ANY work with people, one must go through an ethics approval process – this is to ensure no harms (relative or absolute) occur for researchers or participants. This process will become more apparent later in the degree programme, particularly in final year projects. 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. Some of the formatting seems to go awry towards the end, so a little more joined-up thinking there would have been useful, but overall good.


 * 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


 * 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%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content suggests somewhat deficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * lack of engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Lacking in reflexive and creative use of discussion pages