User talk:Caroline WikiHacker

Hi, I'm Caroline WikiHacker! I'm a Film & Media and Journalism student at University of Stirling. I've created this page as part of a class project focused on wikibooks. I'm new to wikibooks and I'm excited to start contributing!

Wiki Exercise #1 What makes a good Wiki?
My experience of social media and other user generated content sites varies between different platforms. On some sites I function mainly as a consumer and my contribution is very limited and then on other sites I am far more active and choose to contribute or tailor material to my needs so that I am taking control of what I choose to consume.

In my experience, I contribute very little to Facebook. I do not post regularly or engage in many of the additional features the site has to offer. As a user, I generate very little content but I consume a lot of content created by other users. The news feed feature on Facebook is a constant stream of text and images created by 'friends', other users and sponsored links. As a user I have the ability to unsubscribe from certain users' content or block content from certain sites but I always feel I have no control over what I see. It is not possible to predict the content other users might produce and so occasionally I am subjected to viewing something I find uninteresting, offensive or even distressing. Facebook also presents my news feed to me in the order of what they feel is relevant to me, therein taking further control away from me. This means that a lot of content I view on Facebook does not appeal to me. If I do interact with a post I will usually just 'like' the post or 'tag a friend' to bring it to their attention - the level of engagement is minimal.

On other social media sites I am far more active, particularly Instagram. Instagram is another user generated content site which is focused on sharing images. Images are captioned and 'tags' are applied to group similar posts together and track popularity and occurring trends.On Instagram I have more control over what enters my news feed and I only see advertisements if I choose to follow the specific brand. The suggested images are carefully selected to reflect what material I am engaging with the most and I generally find the suggested posts interesting and they often help me discover new brands, new places and people of interest. Because the content I see is chosen by myself or suggested because of it's similarity to other pages I follow I find I engage far more with the site because I am generally more interested in the content i view than on Facebook.

I am new to Wikibooks and Wikipedia and therefore I have very limited experience of user experience. Until now, I have only accessed the site as a consumer. On those occasions I found it interesting and I liked that I had control over what material I wanted to see via the search function. As a contributor I think I will have the opportunity to engage with content that interests me and the discussion feature will encourage me to contribute.

Caroline WikiHacker (discuss • contribs) 21:43, 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 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 all the elements are there, but I'd like to see more creative use of the platform to comunicate ideas. 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). Keep this up!

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 10:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #1
Hi Caroline WikiHacker, I have a similar engagement to the social media platforms you mentioned. I am far more active on Instagram and mostly only use Facebook to stay in touch with friends, who life further away and are part of diverse groups, which allow me to share information with a smaller circle than all of my Facebook friends in case I post something on my profile. Still, it feels sort of private, because I still know my Facebook friends in real life. On Instagram I hardly know many of my followers or the people I follow in real life. Which is okay, I rarely use it in terms of written communication like I use Facebook. But what bothers me on both social media platforms are the inaccurate information. As a Journalism student I also follow diverse news pages and cannot believe, what many established newspaper post throughout the day (e.g. false information is cited as a source). People do not question it and engage with the false content on various social media platforms. That is why I read similar posts on Facebook and on Instagram. People engage with something irrelevant, which is sad, because they only need to give it more thought and attention. --DesireeSophie (discuss • contribs) 15:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Caroline WikiHacker,

I too feel that I am a lot more active on sites like Instagram and even twitter than I am on Facebook etc. I agree with what you said about being able to edit what appears on your feed more on instagram. Even though you can unfollow certain pages or people on facebook I find its a lot harder to fully control than instagram. I was wondering about your opinion on the comments that people change their personality or how they come across depending on what media platform they use? I myself feel I need to restrict what I said on facebook with my family being on there but am more open on twitter and Instagram. BethIrish (discuss • contribs) 20:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Caroline, I undersand what you are saying about it being easier to pick the content you can see on Instagram, but do you not agree that it is easier for a user to fully edit a picture using specific apps and then upload, which you cannot do with words / status on Facebook. This is what makes me feel Facebook can be more 'real' in terms of seeing the real user. You are also able to upload full albums of pictures to Facebook and therefore you are able to get a better insight into the situation you are viewings and literally see the 'bigger picture'. I feel you only follow people and accounts the you agree with so it is hard to gain a full, balanced and fair perspective as we consume information we want to see. susannamhawes Susannamhawes (discuss • contribs) 00:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2 Visibility and Data trails
Privacy is often the biggest concern of social media users, while many of us are happy to contribute to social media platforms and share information - we tend to so with the false belief that we own that information and that we control what happens to it. The reality is that once information like a post, a tweet or an image has been uploaded, it is very difficult to erase it completely as it becomes property of the social media platform. The platform now owns the information, whether it be an unflattering picture, angry rant or intoxicated pearl of wisdom which might not seem so wise come Sunday morning. Once the information is out there we can never really get it back. A thought that many of us would find very unnerving.

Privacy can be breached in different ways, sometimes unintentionally or in other cases maliciously. Use of any social media platform, particularly ones which feature your personal details, carry a risk. They can reveal your location, employer, family and the check in feature can even confirm your current whereabouts. This isn't information we would tell a stranger in the street but we don't have the same reservations when we decorate our profile.

In my personal experience, I am very selective about what information I choose to share on my profile. For example, I work for a prominent law firm in Glasgow and by naming them on my profile I suddenly become a representative of that company, how I act on social media could affect the firm's public image. Just keeping the name of the firm private allows me more freedom. On Facebook I tailor my settings to be more private but i find that Facebook constantly changes their privacy settings and it is difficult to stay in control.

On sites like Instagram I am less concerned about privacy as what I share is image only. There is no personal or sensitive information. On Instagram my posts are public so I therefore have a much greater online presence than on Facebook.

Caroline WikiHacker (discuss • contribs) 22:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #2

 * Hi, I enjoyed reading your post! I found your point about how the information you post can never truly be deleted very interesting. I find it unnerving too and I’m selective with which sites I use my full name on. I have a similar attitude as you towards levels of privacy on Facebook and Instagram, because as you say, Instagram does not require as much personal information.


 * It is interesting though, how we know that these sites own our information, but we still use them, even though it feels unnerving. I feel it could be because there’s a pressure to be online and using these sites as everyone else does. It could also be as you said, that we feel that we are in control, even though we’re not completely. What do you think? - Katienotcatriona (discuss • contribs) 11:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3 Information Overload
The internet is an incredibly useful resource, at any time you're only a few clicks away from learning something new. It can provide answers to spiritual questions, offer health advice, teach you how to bake a cake or teach you how to fire a gun. The possibilities really are endless. As an educational tool this is fantastic but equally it provides a source of distraction. The information at our fingertips can be almost overwhelming and being just a few clicks away from a magazine article, music video or movie means it's hard not to give in to temptation and use it purely for entertainment purposes. There's nothing wrong with this of course but it's harder to maintain a work/leisure balance. Personally, I find social media particularly distracting. A lot of social media sites send notifications to the user when something new happens - in a world where users are constantly updating, uploading and engaging, these notifications can pop up continuously throughout the day. I find that these notifications can be highly distracting. Even when working on another piece of work, the notification drags you back in to social media. The notification can be hard to ignore as there is a fundamental 'fear of missing out'. Even if I did try to ignore them, curiosity would eventually creep in and I would give in.This is why so many people consciously put barriers between themselves and networking sites. In my experience, it is common for students to deactivate their social media pages during exam periods or when working on complex pieces of work in a bid to help them concentrate but they are often reactivated within days, if not hours! I am very conscious of the time I spend on social media and I find that notifications make me feel constantly connected and this makes it hard to switch off. A few months ago I turned off Facebook notifications and it has changed how I use the site. Now I only use Facebook when I choose to go on and not when Facebook lures me in with a notification. This means I can separate work tasks from leisure time browsing Facebook more effectively. Being able to switch off from the site also makes me feel calmer in real life as I don't have that fear of missing out anymore and use these sites for enjoyment rather than habit. The Wikibook project has brought up new challenges I haven't faced with any project before. Working on a networking site as part of coursework is a new experience. At first, it was harder to focus on the task in hand and not to browse but as the project has progressed this has become easier. It has also changed how I think of networking sites as up until now these have only been a source of entertainment or a communication medium with friends. This project has allowed me to use a networking site in a professional capacity which has been a beneficial learning experience. Caroline WikiHacker (discuss • contribs) 07:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #3
(Comment) Hello Wikihacker, I enjoyed reading your discussion on information overload. I agree that social media is extremely distracting and it can be easy to fall into the habit of obsessively checking your notifications. When working on an assignment for example and you receive a notification it can feel unbearable to ignore. Do you think that we are so easily distracted by social media because we are all addicted to it? Too much of anything is bad so being constantly connected and religiously checking Facebook can’t be good for you.That’s a good idea turning off notifications, it would be interesting to see the impact this has had on your activity on Facebook. you said you can separate work an leisure more easily now that your notifications are switched off so would you say you now spend less time on Facebook and more on work time?

Thinking about how this can distract work flow, when taking part in a group assignment we often create a Facebook group to communicate as it makes it a lot easier to contact one another and the other group members will often see the message instantly because of the notification. However, I feel that this can lead us to distraction as once message has been opened we can end up aimlessly browsing through Facebook as we are already on the site, do you agree? If so, do you think we are better sticking to more formal ways of communicating when doing a group project such as email? Jackhand1 (discuss • contribs) 00:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi ! Thank you for your comment, disabling Facebook notifications hasn't necessarily reduced the amount of time I spend on Facebook but it has certainly changed how I use it. Rather than going on for very brief periods of time at frequent intervals which can be distracting and break my focus when working on other tasks, now I tend to separate my time more efficiently so i'll finish a task and then use Facebook for a longer period where I can just browse and use it leisurely. In terms of group work, we chose to communicate via Whatsapp at first and then changed to communicating on Wikibooks. I agree that just being online can be distracting, had these been a Facebook or Instagram project I would of found it difficult to stay focused! As its on Wikibooks which doesnt have such a stong social structure I find communicating via this site actually helps put my mind in 'work mode' as I don't associate Wiki with my social activites. Caroline WikiHacker (discuss • contribs) 16:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4 Wikibook Project Reflective Account
The Wikibook project has been a unique learning experience which has been both challenging and inspiring. The project itself was unlike any other coursework I've had to date and it really pushed me out of my comfort zone and pushed me to learn and engage with something totally new. Before the project I had never contributed to any Wiki platforms. I was aware of the different platforms and their uses but I had only ever used Wikipedia as a source of information. My contributions to online material was relatively limited when we started the project, I was involved in student radio a few years back and at that time I was really active on social media for marketing and audience engagement purposes. However, since the radio show ended I haven't continued this activity on a personal level. For that reason, the idea of producing online content that could be accessed by the public was a little daunting at first. However, I feel it has been a good learning curve and it has encouraged me to step out of my comfort zone more and engage with media as a contributor and not just a consumer.

The Wikibook exercises covered a range of subjects and the briefs were relatively vague. I liked this aspect of the exercises as it meant I had more freedom over what I wanted to write about and I could write about what issues or concepts were most relevant to my experience of digital media and culture. This meant everyone's post was unique. Through reading and commenting on my peers' posts, I was exposed to a variety of different opinions and writing styles - it seemed that everyone had a different approach to the exercises and different experiences to discuss. This helped open my mind to new ideas that I would not usually experience through social media as I tend to follow and be friends with people whose ideas reaffirm my own opinion rather than challenge it.

The Wikibook collaborative project was a new challenger in that the marking criteria had a greater emphasis on engagement than content. In the past, group work usually involved meeting once to assign roles and then only speaking briefly before submission to confirm everyone had used the same font and referencing style. These projects did little to improve communication or teamwork skills because as soon as everyone knew their role they carried out their work solely on their own, safe in the knowledge that their marks could not be compromised by other members of the group. This project was completely different, it was the communication within our group and our collective effort that would ultimately lead to our success. I felt much more responsible for my role within the team as I knew a lack of engagement on my part would compromise others in my group. I also wanted to help other people within the group as the overall success of our chapter was more important that the individual success of my own section. Being faced with a new platform and trying to get to grips with Wiki markup encouraged us to talk to each other and share ideas - we were all learning how to add photos, quotes and links etc. for first time and we were keen to point each other in the right direction. This occurred across the wikibook chapters and allowed us to interact with other groups also.

I found looking at other chapters of the book really useful, as I could see how each group was tackling the project in a different way. I also took inspiration from other groups and applied similar ideas to my own. For example, I noticed the discussion pages on some chapters were really organised and easy to follow which made communication more efficient for everyone in the group. This motivated me to create more headings and subheadings on my own group's discussion page. I rearranged the content into relevant sections so that it would be easier to refer to. This not only improved my skills of Wiki markup but it allowed me to highlight the level of engagement within my group. A lot people within my group had made really helpful contributions but they were hard to see because multiple discussions were taking place at the same time. Organising the discussion page made communication easier and it became a useful tool to refer to.

I felt I was inspired and motivated by other people within my group, seeing that my team members had contributed a lot of good content made me want to do the same so that I could feel that I too had contributed to the success of our chapter and hadn't let anyone down. Seeing how other people incorporated links or made use of bullet points and lists gave me ideas for how to structure my own content. The success of our chapter was a collaborative effort and I believe it is a good example of how valuable collective intelligence can be. The chapter gave us an opportunity to combine our strengths and help each other with our weaknesses. Ultimately, the end result is greater than each of us could of achieved alone. It was inspiring and motivating each other which brought out the best in our abilities.

If I were to undertake a project like this again I would try be more creative with my contributions. As I was new to Wiki, I found it difficult just getting to grips with the site navigation and basic functions like headings, bold, underline, etc. Now that I have more experience of the platform I can see that there is much more I could have incorporated into my content to make it more interesting or to emphasise key points. Wiki provides an opportunity to be really creative and I don't think I utilised the site to it's full potential. I would like to continue contributing to the site and hopefully build on what I have learned from the project.Caroline WikiHacker (discuss • contribs) 23:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #4
Hello Caroline! I thoroughly enjoyed reading this as a lot of what you wrote was reflected in my own experience. Something I found interesting though was your points on the group work, as something you said has caused me quite a bit of thinking. You said you were more involved as you knew a lack of effort on your part would compromise the marks of not just yourself but the other members in the group. Did you mean this to say that if you failed to contribute there would be less opportunity for them to engage with you and therefore gain points, or do you feel that your lack of contribution would just overall reflect badly on the entire group? I ask because similarly to your group doing poorly because of you, you could end up doing poorly because of someone else. I'm always hesitant of group projects where a dependence is made on other people, as there will always be people who are more passionate than others. If you do believe that your work could have been jeopardised by the failure of others, how do you think you would combat this? Everyone I've encountered so far has worked hard on the project so this is all purely hypothetical, but I'm just curious as I've personally come up short when I tried to think after reading your post. Hope to hear your thoughts soon! LydiaWithTheFringe (discuss • contribs) 20:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment! In this project, I meant it in the sense that a lack of engagement from myself would result in less opportunity for discussion for others within my team and would therefore make engagement more challenging for others. As the team was responsible for the book as a total project, it also meant if I failed to complete my assigned section, someone else might feel the need to take on additional work to improve the work I was responsible for. Obviously I'd like to think I was an asset to the team as well! But you'd need to ask my team on that one! :) I understand your hesitation, i've experienced that before too! In this case, I was really lucky, my team were very committed. I have been let down in past group projects though and it can be really frustrating. In an educational setting I think group work is really important, even more so when it's not successful. It teaches you a lot about communication, patience and working under pressure. In a professional capacity this would obviously be harder to deal with but personally I think patience and empathy are key to good working relationships - its very easy to assume someone is lazy or irresponsible, but without talking to someone you never really know what they're going through? There might be a good reason for their behavior? If someone wasn't contributing to the project, I think the best thing to do is reach out to them and maybe ask if they need some help, just try get some conversation going? If it is a case of they just don't care then you need to just move on from it - involve them but don't let it deter you from doing the best you can do? Be interested to know what your approach would be as its a tricky situation! Thanks! Caroline WikiHacker (discuss • contribs) 20:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi I really enjoyed reading your evaluation of the wiki process. I completely agree with you that the collaborative nature of these chapters really demonstrates the level of work that can be achieved through collective intelligence. I was reading P. Quijano’s paper on Wiki and she makes a good point that wiki is a particularly useful platform for students to collaborate on work because it strengthens competency in terms of adjusting to a new learning environment, one that is the polar opposite of what we usually experience (i.e. class work, presentations). From reading your post, it seems that you found the overall experience to be beneficial, even though there were challenges. I agree! I think it was an interesting element of the project in the sense that we had to not only produce content on the platform but also figure out how to navigate the platform itself. I initially found this quite a hassle and that lack of willingness sort of lends support to the claim that we sometimes rely too much on the technology to do the work for us instead of forging a conscious interaction with it. While most of us encountered various hurdles like figuring out the specifics of wiki mark-up, I think it was overall a useful learning exercise and marked the beginning of a new skill set. I noticed you mentioned that you would like to continue engaging with wiki and I too feel the same. Do you have any ideas on how you would like to contribute to wiki in the future? Tonyvall (discuss • contribs) 10:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wikibooks Exercise 4 - Ross
Hello. This was indeed an enjoyable and relatable read. I agree that this project was more helpful for developing the ability to work in groups and collaborate, as much like you explained the project required a great degree of communication and planning rather than one face to face meeting and then merely individual contributions from members. I also relate to your comments about being new to the Wiki platform and having the drive and inspiration to make an intricate and interesting web page but not necessarily having the needed knowledge of the platform to create this yet. However at time I felt as if the element of group work made the inception of the page more difficult. Even with my own vision being heavily inspired by previous Wikibooks projects, I found the near competitive nature of working in a group that is assessed on how much is contributed to get in the way of me creating this vison. Finally you also mentioned some anxieties you had about creating content that could be viewed by the general public. How do you feel you overcame that stigma and what do you feel was the best way to create content that the public would accept and be intrigued by. RossWithTheShirts (discuss • contribs) 17:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)
The introduction section is very well-written, summarising many key points in relation to the subject matter. The presentation of a concept (i.e. in this case Fuchs and Sevignani) framing key ideas for discussion, and providing a foundational basis to proceed with an argument, is a really neat idea. It sets up what is essentially, the most theory-oriented discussion in the book, and this isn’t a negative by any means. In fact, it provides a crucial element of balance through which to address the more applied approaches that are perhaps more in evidence in other chapters.

A concerted effort is made throughout to communicate sophisticated ideas in concise ways. The overall structure is well thought out, and evidences deliberation, delegation and timely organisation. Coverage of many of the salient issues encountered in the module are touched upon, either explicitly or in passing, and this is a useful strategy for grounding some of the more abstract ideas.

Lots of live links are made – this chapter makes the most out of the platforms functionality, which in turn is read quite easily as a reflection made on the kind of platform used and the audiences for which you might be writing this chapter. This approach works very well overall. However, I think that more could be made of making interwiki links to various relevant sections in other chapters (especially, perhaps, chapters on Hive mind, or privacy in the Digital Age.)

The sections on Information Society and Network Society are particularly well put together. Although these are perhaps the least theoretically heavy, the way that you discuss and structure the concepts gives these sections a real sense of narrative. Some really good uses of examples and case here to illustrate points made. I would have liked to have seen some use of images or wiki formatting to break up the text a little bit more here, however. The same goes for the section on critical theory – however, this section is much less successful, as it seems rather abstract, and detached from the subject matter. It is factually correct, fairly well written and historically accurate, but perhaps the least satisfying section in the chapter because of this. The sections that immediately follow, featuring the material on social media, are very strong, although again, interwiki links to material on other chapters would make a considerable improvement to the argument overall and to the wikibook more generally.

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.


 * Satisfactory. Your contribution to the book page gives a satisfactory brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a fair range of concepts associated with your subject, and an effort to deliver critical definitions. There is evidence that you draw from relevant literature and scholarship, however your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is slightly lost, perhaps due to a variable depth of understanding the subject matter or over reliance on rote learning. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a somewhat circumscribed range and depth of subject matter.

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


 * 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.


 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, featuring discriminating command of a excellent range of relevant materials and analyses
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material to a wide degree
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument through highly original 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);
 * originality in evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections);
 * significant evidence of independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content to a variable standard (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Good engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Reflexive, creative and fairly well-managed use of discussion pages using deployment of somewhat limited judgement relating to key issues, concepts or procedures