User talk:Campbell Wallace

Hello, I am Campbell Wallace and I am studying Digital Media and Culture at the University of Stirling. For my course I will be creating a Wikibook. I am also interested in engaging as much as I can whilst on the platform however. Thank you. Campbell Wallace (discuss • contribs) 14:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Helpful Discoveries
I have just discovered that the blue pencil tool beside the 'Strikeout' S with a dash in the middle icon will automatically add a signature and timestamp to your document if you click it (it will add this at wherever your cursor was when you clicked it though and not at the end of your document). Therefore you will not have to use four of these ~ anymore. Instead just click the blue pencil and --Campbell Wallace (discuss • contribs) 16:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Also if you click the chain you can add a hyperlink and if you click advanced settings you can insert pictures and graphs and if you accidentally merge your stories click edit it and you can view your entire discussion page there as whole. --Campbell Wallace (discuss • contribs) 17:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

To look for someone type in the search bar User talk:'TheirUserName', in case you forgot as I did. --Campbell Wallace (discuss • contribs) 17:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * really useful! Don't forget to share this on your group's chapter discussion pages when it comes to the project work!


 * GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: What Makes a Good Wiki?
In online collaboration there are various differences between how different platforms are used, for example there are differences between the ways people engage with Wikipedia and Social Medias (such as Facebook, for example).

One way in which people may be said to engage differently between the two platforms is by wearing different 'masks' as argued by Erving Goffman in The Presentation of the Self In Everyday Life (1959). This concept is then clearly discussed in the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z0XS-QLDWM.

This in turn means that people will act out a different persona of themselves on each of the different platforms they engage with, whether that be online or offline. This also means that when online people will be possibly inclined to act out different personas in different environments based both on their audience and what they see fitting for that audience (to place present themselves positively). Therefore on Facebook (and other social medias) people are likely to post content that will make them look attractive, funny and possibly even to be at a certain political stance (should they see that to paint them in a positive light). On Wikipedia however people are likely to either try to engage in the collaborative learning experience and conform or do exactly the opposite and 'troll' others should they see that act to be comical and thus placing them in a more positive light. Basically this then means that users will act differently across the two platforms (for example by posting a comical picture of a cat on Twitter with a caption about Mondays; or by editing an article on Wikipedia about how to use Wikipedia in a display of collaborative learning).

Social Media environments and Wikipedia also differ greatly in terms of the pages layout. Social Media is generally easier to communicate on as it serves as a business looking to be as convent for its users in communicating or presenting themselves as possible (for example messaging someone on WhatsApp messenger or adding, and editing a photo on Instagram). Wikipedia however stands as a charity which is about building a collaborative learning platform where users should both produce and consume information (anonymously should they choose by simply using an ambiguous username: thus removing the element of self-presentation and allowing users to focus on the information).

Overall, both Social Media and Wikipedia overlap in the sense that they show people to act out a persona that they feel paints them in the best light; however the personas played by individuals differs greatly across both platforms as the platforms themselves exist for different purposes (with Social Media existing as a means of general communication and self-presentation and Wikipedia existing as a collective learning environment where the focus is on information, and self-presentation to an extent but in a different manner and therefore a different mask is worn by the user: he/she acts differently). --Campbell Wallace (discuss • contribs) 17:41, 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.


 * 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.


 * This post is at the upper end of this grade band, so a little improvement will go a long way to attaining a higher mark. 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, 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. Really useful link here - perhaps more links to academic and non-adademic sources would be really productive in future posts?


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – you were supposed to respond to two user's posts, but I can only find one so in an assessment scenario, you would have dropped marks - however, this comment is 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). Keep this up, and don't forget - address the brief!

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 14:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure if you're supposed to comment by editing you're original post, so forgive me if I've done this wrong!

I think bringing the concept of "masks" and persona's was really interesting, particularly with how it dictates how we act on these different platforms. There is definitely a difference regarding how people act on social media as opposed to wiki sites, and as you mentioned this is no doubt related to the more personal nature of the former. I wonder though, if people's actions on Wikibooks can be attributed to them trying to display themselves in the best light. I think it could be argued that users primarily edit rather selflessly, to contribute rather than improve their social status, due to the rather anonymous status of users, and the more 'optional' nature of Wikibooks.

Although, to take the idea of 'masks' further, I suppose the act of creating an anonymous user profile, even if it is not a personal representation of the person themselves, is creating a 'mask' for them to interact with other users. Applying these concepts was very interesting indeed!

I definitely have noticed stark differences in layout as well, and I wonder if Wikibooks and related sites could benefit from a different layout, for example when it comes to commenting on discussions!

Dcunningham1017 (discuss • contribs) 18:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Wikibooks and sites alike could benefit from a closer layout to some Social Media platforms, particularly when considering the ease of use and compatibility these platforms provide. In fact, a more attractive layout, or at least greater ease of use on Wiki may even increase the amount of users on the site, and with that the pool of users and their backgrounds. This in turn could improve the collective knowledge provided by the sites as there would be more producers across them with more varied views and stances, thus enriching the overall knowledge provided by the platforms. Some of these users of course may not be so productive and might just increase the consumer list, but should knowledge not be shared? And if its not shared what really is its worth?

However, on the other hand an increase of users could simply damage the site as it may attract more users that do not necessarily take it and what it stands for seriously.

--Campbell Wallace (discuss • contribs) 00:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of social media as a 'mask' however on another hand I feel like the pressure to have a good 'mask' is also what drives a lot of people out of social media. Also, do you not think that the reason behind the users acting different on the two different platforms is because of the different purposes of each platform? I agree with the point about Wikipedia removing the idea of self, so that the focus is taken away from the person but rather the use of the programme.Scottmcindoe (discuss • contribs) 04:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2 Visibility and Data Trails
Online I think of myself as being very visible to an extent, in the sense that anyone can find me on Facebook and Twitter in what I see as a version of myself portraying an ‘impersonation management’ persona, or ‘mask’, that serves to portray myself on these platforms in the best light possible (C.G Jung in Jacobi, Jolande. Jacobi, S, Jolande. 1999. p33. & Goffman, Erving in Calhoun, Craig. 2012. p31). On other online platforms however, I find myself to be less visible, such as Xbox Live, where I use an account that is not linked to my name or identity (meaning that this account is a less managed/altered mask of myself and that not everyone can find me on this platform as it cannot be traced back to me unless you know my username, thus making me feel like a slightly more secure, less managed version of myself).

The information that I share on these platforms then varies as I find that on my Xbox account I share very little information as I am represented by an ambiguous username and I only have to share what I like, which can be nothing. On the other hand, I find that my Facebook presents far more information about me, to far more people (from my date of birth to where I study). This in turn makes me feel less secure on Facebook as people can find far more information about me far easier, regardless of whether or not I know them, hence adding to a sense of vulnerability on the platform.

For me, I find that I feel a lot safer on platforms where I remain more ambiguous (such as my Xbox account) as, although I know the information about me is easily accessible, I do not feel that I am as at risk as I do not have much personal information on this account and therefore my self and my privacy is more secure. Therefore I find that the way I behave from platform to platform varies according to the amount of information about me presented and the context I find myself in. Thus I believe that the technology that surrounds me alters my behaviour to an extent and, furthermore, I believe that this technology alters societies culture partially also, forcing me to agree with the theory of Technological Determinism by Marshall McLuhan (McLuhan, Marshall in Grosswiler, Paul. 2010. p165).

In terms of relating this all to my Wikibooks project I would like to add that I feel in this environment that I am safe and that the ambiguity of my account adds to the privacy I associate with it.

After all, the only people who should be able to access my information on Wikipedia are those wanting to contribute to the collective production and consumption of knowledge, in theory. Of course this is not always the case, as Wikipedia has seen a history of trolls who post/alter content for comical purposes. For example: http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/taylor-swifts-wikipedia-hacked-shes-8460675.

The Wikipedia platform could then be argued to be no safer than social media platforms as your information is still vulnerable, and what you do is not private. However, if used correctly, Wikipedia should be predominantly made up of a collaboration of individuals who work together for the creative production and consumption of knowledge.

--Campbell Wallace (discuss • contribs) 20:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Calhoun, C., 2012. Contemporary Socialogical Theory. Illustrated edn. John Wiley and Sons.

Grosswiler, P., 2010. Transforming McLuhan: Cultural, Critical, and Postmodern Perspectives. Peter Lang.

Jacobi, Jolande. Jacobi, S, Jolande., 1999. Psychology of C G Jung. Reprint, Revised edn. Psychology Press.

Shenton, Z., 2016-last update, Taylor Swift’s Wikipedia hacked as she’s cruelly dubbed ‘Slithering Snake Becky with the Good Lies’. Available: http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/taylor-swifts-wikipedia-hacked-shes-8460675.

Comments of Wiki Excercise #2
Interesting points made there. I think wikipedia's information is highly regulated as you cannot freely change a lot of the content without debate. However on these user pages, it is easier to change the information more freely and it depends on the user too. Your point on remaining anonymous on xbox is something I can relate to in a way. I used tumblr as a young teen, having no clear name or anything personal apart from sharing posts that I enjoyed. It felt less open and no need to consider a 'mask' and without the need to portay a persona for others. How do you feel about the data being tracked, even once you delete the profit?

Littlekatie1 (discuss • contribs) 23:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting, Im glad you see the differences between how we are portrayed when we are anonymous and not in a similar way to myself. I feel that the concept of data being tracked is both useful and scary at the same time as I believe that the concept of data trails can be very helpful to some companies and that this in turn can also them to improve their services for users, thus giving us benefits. However on the other hand sometimes it can seem like a little bit of an invasion of privacy, or even lead to spam (as your email gets passed around).

--Campbell Wallace (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I empathise with your comments on self-representation on different platforms. I also share a somewhat realistic representation of my identity on Facebook and Twitter, however have the anonymity of an unrelated profile on Xbox Live or Steam. This interests me. Do you think this is because you don’t want other players and profiles to find information about you? If so, why do you think we find the need to privatise our gaming profile but not so much on Facebook, Twitter etc? As you mentioned, information is just as accessible on both of these platforms yet you feel more insecure on Facebook due to not having the ambiguity of your identity on there. Is it just so you CAN behave without getting judged without the identity? CammeyNotCameron (discuss • contribs) 16:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Not so much, I think that I just enjoy playing my xbox online with my friends and those I actually know, for example when I was younger I remember I used to just add anyone and this often resulted in a lot of spam messages from people I didn't know wanting to play with me which just got annoying. The problem with this was then the more random people I added the more random people would be able to find my account and add me again, thus making a kind of cycle of annoying spam. I find my xbox is more just an enrolment to hang out with friends, but Facebook and Twitter etc are more sociable platforms where we should be able to contact people regardless of relationship. For example Id happily message a random person I vagely know on Facebook; but I wouldn't be as keen to have him play Fifa with me and my friends all night and then come to the pubs with us after (unless we generally liked him). I feel that on Facebook and the sorts you don't have to necessarily be friends with someone to communicate with them, if you have a reason to communicate that is, therefore making yourself accessibly, to an extent, helps. As long as you don't put your Privacy/Safety at risk. I don't feel more insecure on Facebook, but I do act different to an extent, and I am definitely presented far differently. Yes, I think Facebook is a place where impersonation management affects me a lot more.

--Campbell Wallace (discuss • contribs) 18:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3 Information Overload
I believe that the existence of so much information online is generally a good thing as I question if its actually possible to have to much information available. Of course this can become problematic when it comes to issues over distraction, privacy and data trails where information can affect a user in a more negative light. However, generally dealing with these problems is down to the user, mostly.

I try to deal with the abundance of information on the internet by setting out to do something when I go online and then by doing it before I allow myself to get distracted by information and the sorts that is not relevant to what Im doing (and this distraction always happens, particularly on Social Media platforms where you find yourself reading about an event your interested in one moment, and then watching videos of cats or people falling over for another... Few hours). What normally contributes to how I deal with this abundance of information is often factors such as time and importance, in the sense that I am far less likely to get distracted by irrelevant information when I am either in a rush or if I am generally busy working towards something.

For the Wikibooks project I have found that it has made my workflow significantly more than what I initially expected. I have found this as the project requires regular engagement and maintenance and this, on top of all my other assessments, is actually quite difficult as I have found that I have to actually schedule to an extent since I cannot just do this project when pleases me like an essay. Although this is actually a good thing as I feel as though this increased engagement has me learning more. The people I know who are also working on the Wikibooks project I have found are also scheduling a lot more and spending significantly longer in the library.

From the book 'Information Overload: A System for Better Managing Everyday Data' by Guus Pijpers, 2010, I found that it was very interesting reading about how our brain actually cope with distraction and information abundance. In the section of the book that I studied I found that Pijpers discusses the 'Barriers to information use', the ideas of 'Collection Mania' and what actually creates 'Information Overload' in depth - he even discusses how to 'Remember to Remember' and 'Pay Attention'. Therefore this book is really relevant to the concept of information overload, and if anyones interested, you can access parts of it online from Google books free here: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HNslpa8OQ10C&printsec=frontcover&dq=information+overload&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcxN_rtrPSAhVMKsAKHbpDCKMQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=information%20overload&f=false

The thing about this book however is that it is not directly linked to online or even the online/real life divide; although its easy to draw the lines.

References

GUUS PIJPERS, 2010. Information Overload: A System for Better Managing Everyday Data. John Wiley and Sons.

--Campbell Wallace (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise 3: Infromation Overload
Hi ,

I agree with you that is all a matter of how you access and deal with the mass of online information personally, but there is also some information, which is not as selective as the overload provided online: your personal life. All the information you engage with in your everyday real-life. In the reading you suggested Guus Pijpers comes up with a definition of infromation’s characteristics, which I think is very fitting to describe its general nature:


 * Information has its own characteristics. For instance, information can be used to substitute resources or to substitute automation for human labour. Information is also diffusive: it spreads and it changes. Information has been the greatest threat to oppressive governments. Information can be communicated via commercial, a photograph, or body language; it can be hidden in the words of a novel or a newspaper. Information is human; it only exists through human perception.”''

You are right it is easy to draw the lines to the Online World and our Digital Culture, because the non-tangible nature of information stays the same, no matter if we face in online or in real-life only. It can always be depleted and diminished. Thinking this way, Guus Pijpers already covers a lots of aspects we discussed in the module such as the impact of information/knowledge has if you obtain it (surveillance), how valuable the public access of it is for our democracy, the ways we express ourselves using information (Online identity), and the way we communicate (via SNS) and most important concerning the topic of information overload the flow of information and the fact that it is human, so to speak only an extension of ourselves.

So, you are a person, who need the urgency or needs to feel the relevancy/importance of something to be done in order to get really focused?

--DesireeSophie (discuss • contribs) 22:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, ,

Really glad you enjoyed the reading, thats a really good quote! Particularly how Pijpers describes human as being a threat to oppressive governments, I find that to be a really interesting point for the issues over online security, privacy and even freedom. I find that of course I cannot filter all the information I come across in my personal everyday life, especially when considering a lot of this information may come to me spontaneously. However, when it comes to an issue or topic I can at least try to disregard information I do not need, and If information comes up that I didn't not expect I will make a decision on whether or not it is worth using/my time.

Also, yes, I find that urgency is an important factor for getting things done for me, although not the only factor. After all, If we didn't have time limits would we ever get anything done, assuming we lack any other forms of motivation? --Campbell Wallace (discuss • contribs) 13:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You have agood point there. Everyday infromation comes unfiltered and mostly unconciously though. Yeah, I do work a smiliar way. And sometimes I really have to schedule certain things into my life, to really get me doing something and not forgetting the importance of it (same with the Wiki Project, it surely takes a lot of time, but it is fun to learn new things by constantly engaging with it, even when I have to push myself, because I can see improvements and it feels good to get something done.)
 * True. Something has to be limited, otherwise it would be worth anything. Digital Media itself, I believe, is created to support the human, because we are limited in our doings ourselves.

--DesireeSophie (discuss • contribs) 17:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
The Wikibook exercise as a whole was a different means of learning to anything else I have done before, particularily at university. However this was not necessarily a bad thing as I found the collaborative learning platform allowed for information to be acquired, and shared for that matter, far quicker that It would regularly. One large factor that resulted in this build up in information that I find does not exist as much in other assessments was the fact that people were forced to work together, but outside of their own friend groups at that. This in turn meant that resources and links that one may have not otherwise come across would literally be shared for you. Thus allowing one to learn more as they are presented with a wider range of information from alternate sources. Although I found this also resulted in more ideas arising as people would host their own interested and ideas and at times it could become hard to filter out with information to go with. Especially when considering the discussion page in the Wikibook project could flood with information in under a day! Therefore I found that keeping up with the module, its ideas and themes and trying to keep a persistent daily maintenance and presence on the collaborative platform was a must - both for the sake of keeping up to date with the information and workload; and to avoid becoming a mere consumer.

I then found that writing for a small audience in a research environment was actually a very positive and worthwhile means of working as the research environment, as I mentioned, allows for me to both produce and consume information with an audience I probably would have otherwise not come across. Also those who I worked with in my group could provide positive feedback on my work and help me where I may have gone astray. Therefore I seen clear benefits in the peer-to-peer review system. However I think these benefits are only possible on the monitored Wikibooks page, as I believe from what I have been told, that Wikipedia can be a lot less supportive if someone makes a mistake on a page.

However overall I seen benefits in using a collaborative knowledge building platform as I found that I could acquire/see the build up of information and resources very quickly. I also found that from this exercise I devolved a better sense of how to write in a more public domain than that I am used to, but also how to engage collaboratively with a group.

--Campbell Wallace (discuss • contribs) 20:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments

 * Hi !!! Wikibooks has definitely been a new form of learning, and certainly different to anything I have done in the past. I agree with the point you raised about information being shared so effectively. Although the layout and markup language are difficult to come to terms with, the actual contributions from users are very useful. I was also surprised how quickly the discussion pages and the articles themselves could fill up with information! It helped make the whole project seem a lot less daunting.


 * The added 'pressure' of Wikibooks being an academic platform that anyone can view also changed the dynamic. Rather than an essay which only a few Tutors will ever see, we were contributing to actual Wikibooks articles, so that made the work seem more 'worthwhile' in a sense. Dcunningham1017 (discuss • contribs) 00:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

hi, I agree with your ideas within this reviews. I found that this highly different way of submitting work allowed for a completely different way of working as instead of gathering all information and then writing an essay, there was always a flow of information coming in and out of the discussion pages. What I found difficult was that there seemed to be an overload of information coming into the discussion pages which was then hard to monitor and keep up with, never mind then add it into the work that you have on the page. However, i fell that this actually allowed for the improvement of the work every time that you looked at the page as something was always needing added or edited. I think it was quite an intense experience to keep up with but i thought it was interesting to have a different form of assessment that allowed people to express themselves in a different way. SuzanneClark22 (discuss • contribs) 08:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello , I have noticed a change in how you post things on Wikibooks since your first exercise, so as students there is no doubt that we have all improved in our skills in Wikibooks. however, i would like to know your point of view on whether or not you think this is helpful in the future? and if so how can it benefit you as a student? Did you find it challenging to write, keep up with deadlines or understand what you are meant to write on in the Wiki exercises and project? Personally i agree with what you said about finding it hard to properly communicate on Wikibooks i found the best way to properly communicate is threw other platforms however we all needed to build engagement and as a group we decided to restate what was previously discussed on Facebook for example but put it down as a more collected and clear formal thought on Wikibooks discussion page. Dalal22 (discuss • contribs) 22:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Dalal22 (discuss • contribs) 22:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that all our skills on Wiki have improved as a whole and this is particularly clear on the Wikibooks pages themselves. I would say this was a beneficial task for the future should I choose to use the skills I have acquired from it; these skills ranging from time management and communication, to the ability to actually use Wikipedia (or any likewise collective communication platforms). This task was challenging however, yes, and I at times did find myself getting rather lost. --Campbell Wallace (discuss • contribs) 23:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)
The introduction section is incredibly well-written, summarising many key points in relation to the subject matter. A concerted effort is made to communicate sophisticated ideas in a concise, summative way, before proceeding onto the main sections of discussion. The overall structure that follows is well thought out, and evidences deliberation, delegation and timely organisation. Coverage of many of the salient issues surrounding online identity are included, as well as some quite well-chosen examples and cases.

The actual content itself, in the discursive sections, is a little more patchy than what we expect after that Introduction, with some parts that are more superficial and descriptive, yet others that are clearly very well researched, developed, and thought through. The overall effect of this is fine, because as a whole, there is a clear aesthetic that you are writing a hybrid version of a collaborative essay, and an encyclopaedic entry.

There are some instances of typo errors, and a few formatting decisions that could have been better thought through. In addition, the repetition and ill-organisation in one or two subsections (especially the Tinder and Online Dating Websites section, where there is a lot of description, and not much application of theoretical material from the module – references to journalistic pieces on anonymity for example, where reference to good peer-reviewed sources would have given just as good information with obvious added value and opportunity. Anonymity appears in a couple of sections barely sentenced apart, and yet there doesn’t seem to be much joined-up thinking here, nor applying the concept to the section’s subject matter (Tinder and Online dating). Likewise, discussions of various applications repeat (e.g. Snapchat has a few sections specifically devoted to it. Some interwiki links joining up the various sections would have made more of the platform’s functionality.

The final main section, on AI is particularly interesting – it is fairly well structured, well researched, and draws from a wealth of different kinds of sources and materials – ranging from peer-reviewed sources, through journalism and popular cultural materials, to speculative and science fiction. This helps to close off the chapter in a way that establishes a sense of authority as well as being well-written, and therefore is an interesting read, on its own merits. Again, an interwiki link to join the section on Black Mirror with the previous section on the same topic would have been useful.

Referencing – good formatting, good range of sources and materials.


 * Very Poor. Your contribution to the book page gives a deficient brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a qualified familiarity with concepts associated with your subject, and the grasp of conceptual, factual and analytical issues tends to be limited and insecure. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes lack a secure basis.

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