User talk:Chickpeanut

Hello, this is the user talk page for Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs). I'll be mainly using this page for publishing educational assignments, and to discuss and engage with the Wikibooks project we are conducting at the University of Stirling as part of the Digital Media and Culture Module.

Wiki Exercises (Educational Assignments)
The following content is part of a larger educational assignment. Please read details above.

Jump to:
 * 1)  Exercise #1: Screen Time
 * 2)  Exercise #2: Online Visibility
 * 3)  Exercise #3: Information Overload
 * 4)  Exercise #4 - Reflective Account

Exercise #1 - Screen Time
––– Warning: Contains Strong Language –––

In my first assignment, I’d like to look at my blog which I’ve been writing since the beginning of 2015. It’s called The Un-Fuck Up This World Experiment.

Despite its name, is far from a negative, deterministic or gloomy blog, it’s actually an experiment in changing the current state of the world bit by bit with individual, personal action. Or, to be brief, it’s an environmentalist and mindful living blog. I’ve started this blog with the intention of trying a variety of different lifestyles in order to challenge the dominant “common sense” mode of living. What I found most striking is the fact that we live in a hugely consumerist and ‘disposable’ society. I found myself becoming aware of certain environmental and social issues, and encountered a variety of other bloggers who commented on my blog and picked up ideas on theirs. During the second half of 2015, the blog started to focus a lot on Zero Waste living, and even became part of the newly founded | Zero Waste Bloggers Network. I’ve also looked into vegetarianism, minimalism, mindful living and the sharing economy. Writing my blog and engaging with a variety of different modes of living has had a similar effect on me as university education had. It’s helped me to challenge ‘common sense’ assumptions and critically engage with current events and representations. I’ve gained over 90 followers in this year, which not only motivates me to post new ideas and engage into conversation via comments or social media, but also works to aggravate issues within the wider sphere of the internet.

Sharing vs. Blogs
Sharing has become natural to an internet of social networks; at the same time a lot of frustration can arise when friends, or friends of friends, over-share social issue content. A blog compromises this in an appropriate manner, by having a clear online presence which is designed for a certain function - rather than just a profile 'presence' on sites such as Facebook. People can actively choose to follow - or unfollow - blogs that interest them. This way, they can easily manage the information overflow that would otherwise follow from a full facebook feed.

Petitions vs. Blogs
When it comes to online activism, the difference between blogs and petitions is notable. Petitions are too easily shared with little or no engagement, and afterwards forgotten just as easiy. Using a personal blog to convey my ideas about certain issues I find important gives the platform a different character. I can lead as example for people who have considered making a certain change to their lifestyle, which actually inspires personal change. As another example, the University of Stirling Students' Union's environmental department has started a blog along its 2016 campaign for a university-wide bottle tax. The issue is straight-forward: Using an added fee on bottled water to finance free water fountains around campus to reduce issues with plastic bottle waste. A petition could have inspired a few hundred people to sign to show their solidarity. Nonetheless, the choice fell on a personal blog, in which the Environmental and Ethics Officer talks about her attempts to live entirely waste-free during the campaign. This blog, in contrast to a petition, leads by example, brings up issues such as waste in a personal, relatable context, and will hopefully raise awareness within the student body of plastic waste and what we can individually do to prevent pollution on campus and in the wider world. Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 21:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Comment
Very good work here. In-depth and critically-aware post. I would say that it's a bit on the long side and you need to try to keep to the assigned 2000 characters. Also, I would have liked to have seen more integration with the themes and concerns of the module, even looking forward to future aspects of the module (i.e. civic web and popular movements online, as well as some of the more explicit aspects of collective intelligence and individual action which you mention specifically in this post). Good use of markup and the links are very useful to orient the reader.


 * A post of this standard roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor, possibly at the lower end, but certainly a very good post:
 * 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.

RE: Comments on others’ work
These are on time and provide an excellent example of how the format can be used to exchange ideas and discuss work-in-progress - lots of content, scope and reference to module themes is made explicit, and excellent use of the potential of the markup itself through embedded links and formatting. Remember that your comments on other people's work is weighted as heavily as your own post when it comes to grades - in this case your comments have, if anything, enabled you to pull your marks up a little. Keep this up!! GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 17:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments
Let me know what you think! --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 21:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Hey, your work is really good! I find the the fact that blogs are more effective ways of conveying certain issues in the world compared to other social networks like Facebook very interesting. I also have to agree with you with regards to people over sharing information on Facebook. As I haven't had much experience in exploring blogs I will definitely check out yours. :) Kyra Paterson (discuss • contribs) 13:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Great to hear, I only got into blogging because of my own blog. I thought it'd be a fun way to track my efforts (the 'diary' idea again), but once you get into it, it's like another social network out there! Lots of fun, but also very time consuming! --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 11:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a very good blog! The title reminds me of the Vlogbrothers's mission to "decrease world-suck" through things like world-wide charities, providing free education on Crash Course and the SciShow as well as founding many other educational channels on youtube. In regards to the environment, I personally try to recycle and upcycle as much as possible, I try to take public transport or walk to most places, and I happen to be vegetarian, which I know is good for the environment but it is mostly coincidently as I stopped eating meat because I simply didn't like the taste. I'm personally more concerned with the impact that bigger institutions have on the planet as opposed to individuals. Even if everyone in the world stopped using plastic bags for example, the products we buy will still have so much unnecessary, non-reusable packaging, like individually-wrapped biscuits, what's up with that? Anyways, I also completely agree with you about petitions. I almost never even bother signing petitions even if I care about the issue. I also never share any political-ish issues on facebook personally, though I do on my Tumblr since I know the people I follow on there are like-minded and will care a bit more. Sleepyzoe (discuss • contribs) 16:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I really need to check that out, thanks for the link! A few months after my blog went online, someone made me aware of theUnFuck The World Movement. Seems like there is plenty of people out there with similar goals (and the same name ideas). And to comment on your second thought: You're totally right in the fact that certain industries are polluting this world many times more than individuals! The best way to tackle these issues is to try to combine pushing legislation for stricter regulation with individual consumer choice. What would you think would happen if people stopped buying K-cups because they are the worst polluting way to enjoy a cup of coffee? The company had no choice but to re-think their business model towards a more sustainable product. After all, we live in a free market economy in which our individual demand should regulate the supply. In theory, at least. --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 11:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I took a quick look at your blog and was really intrigued by the 60 day shopping ban post. Firstly, I think it's a great idea and I'm going to give it a shot myself at some point. While I tend to cringe at the thought of purchases over £20, I am extremely guilty of small impulse purchases and splurging on fast food that all adds up. One hand it's wasteful and leaves me short on cash. On the other, knowing I've bought something without a good reason just makes me feel anxious and regretful. Which brings me to me second point, regarding the section on happiness. While I can't say I've felt that possessions make me happy, I have only recently begun to accept the idea of happiness as a state of mind, of happiness despite circumstance. It's a very healthy and important idea to be aware of, I feel. -ReluctantCyborg (discuss • contribs) 02:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, there is nothing I can add to your comment. Thanks for reading my blog! --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 11:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Exercise #2 - Online Visibility
For the purpose of the second Wikibooks assignment, I tried to figure out my personal degree of visibility to the public on different platforms, and why there is vast differences between platforms.

Google
First, I decided to google myself. My name is very unique, so I largely got results that relate to myself. I found 19 entries on Google and 57 images. Of the 19 entries, 13 are about me. Three of those were actually surprising, as they contained links to products I had reviewed on Amazon. Even though you can choose to submit these reviews anonymously or under a pseudonym, I had gone into the ‘default setting’ trap. Now my name cannot be removed from what I had bought.

Facebook
Next, I looked at my social media presence, which is so far only my Facebook profile. I first signed up in 2011, which means I’ve accumulated of over five years of personal data on my profile, which is, despite me not posting regularly, a not insignificant amount of posts, likes, shares, and comments.

Facebook has frequently been under scrutiny over the amount of data it collect. In 2009, they set the default privacy settings to ‘public’, which was only reversed to ‘friends only’ in 2014 after a huge amount of complaints of people who accidentally shared their content with the whole world.

Despite the option to limit visibility to ‘friends only’, there is a lot of content on Facebook that is publicly viewable, such as likes, or profile and timeline pictures. I recently accidentally posted a publicly available message, as I did so not on my own profile but on a celebrity page. Of course, my post immediately showed up in my 13 Google search entries. What most Facebook users miss is the fact that ‘public’ means ‘public to everyone’, including people who don’t even have a Facebook account.

Blogging
I have yet another online presence, which is my personal blog (see previous exercise). Facebook algorithms might be able to detect my favourite band, political orientation, or even how often I eat at McDonald’s. If you want to see the whole content of my life, my blog reveals it all.

This difference in disclosed information was striking, and I realised that I don’t understand the underlying psychology behind it; why this simple change of platform makes me immediately more lenient when it comes to private information. You won’t find my age, address, or sexual preference on my blog, yet you will be able to find other details I would never want to share on Facebook. I further searched for an answer and found a 2008 paper by Laura Gurak, in which she asks: “Why would a person want to create a private written object, day after day, and then offer it for public scrutiny?”

She explains how blogs are both public and private. Bloggers construct an online identity through narration of one’s self, just as much as Facebook profiles and timelines do. The main difference between public posts on facebook and public blogs is that on a blog, there is more effort and selection between what is being made public. At least for me, Facebook is a tool primarily used to communicate with friends and organise offline events, a lot of the information is only intended for me and my friends. Everything written on my blog is intended to the public audience and carefully selected and constructed. I did not even give people my full name. That’s why there is no such things as privacy settings on personal blogs. --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments
Feel free to leave your thoughts --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 00:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC) Why do you add so much value to being visible on the Internet? Cheers! Gvg00001 (discuss • contribs) 13:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think being openly visible is being vulnerable. In posting details of my life, I open myself to public scrutiny - for no real reason other than narcissism. Most people are simply uninterested and I just contribute to their information overload, or they start judging me by my online presence. I'd rather let people judge me by my real self. But that's of course not the only reason. I've commented on Rosane linde's talk page where she knows of a real life case of a person being deported from a country because of what they posted online (in a private message). Sometimes, some people's actions and opinions are being subject to government or police surveillance. That's when online visibility stops being great and starts being creepy. In the worst case, this can undermine democracy. Think about China, for example. I am happy that we have freedom of expression here in the UK, but that doesn't mean someone doesn't take notice of that we say. Creepy... --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 11:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Gurak is not the only one who has been wondering that. Of course, not all the blogs are about the blogger themselves but some of them are, and sometimes they are very personal. Before internet people wrote diaries (some still do) and they were considered to be private objects. Reading someone else's diary was/is not acceptable. Why then do people want to publish their diaries? I think that people want to open themselves to public scrutiny and let others see and hear and most of all comment on those private issues; maybe tell the blogger that it is normal to be like that or it is really cool to do this. I suppose that people also read those blogs because they can reflect and reassure that they are normal as well. That, of course, relies on the presumption that the blogger tells the truth. You, Chickpeanut, said that you would rather let people judge you by your real self, but isn't blogging about one's own life supposed to represent that person? Maybe it is just easier to open up to an unknown audience than friends on Facebook or even physical real life friends. The things people share on Facebook or blogs are showing only one side of the person but are still part of the person. I don't think anyone really shows all the sides of themself to anyone in any situation. After all, people act differently in different groups and environments all the time, not just online. Sirrinari (discuss • contribs) 22:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Exercise #3: Information Overload
Despite information being considered one of the most valuable asset in modern times, not many do actually consider the mass of information we have access to as beneficial. The official definition on Wikipedia acknowledges the psychological dimension of “Information Overload”:


 * “Information overload… refers to the difficulty a person can have understanding an issue and making decisions that can be caused by the presence of too much information” 

The human mind can only process a limited amount of information at any time. This can increase anxiety, feelings of powerlessness, and reduce creativity through distraction. It can also affect decision making capabilities through the over-abundance of possible options, which in turn lowers productivity. This causes real financial losses to businesses, as their employees get less and less work done in the time they work.

Even when we do not deal with the flood of emails, our society has increasingly fostered a concept known as the “fear of missing out”. Not being able to not know information, and therefore trying to consume as much as possible, can be time consuming to the point of obsession when people check their phones up to several times an hour.

What, then, can we do about our personal information overload?

Firstly, we have to recognise that out of the millions pieces of information on the web, it is impossible for us to follow them all, and that not knowing the things we think we should know isn’t actually as bad – after all, it will always be out there, ready to be accessed by us whenever we actually need it.

Moreover, science has acknowledged that monotasking is considerably more efficient than multi-tasking, as completing one task satisfactorily is better than halfway doing several tasks to an average result. Getting back to work after a distraction often takes longer than the actual distraction itself, which is why many people have started to use information technology in their favour in order to reduce the information flood that can cause distraction in the first place.

Personal Experience
I personally use an ad blocker such as AdBlock on most sites, in order to keep websites clean and distraction-free. I try to check my emails twice a day at most, and not from my phone. Checking emails and Facebook can be very compulsive, and especially in situations when you cannot immediately respond, it is a fairly pointless exercise that can potentially offend the person you talked to offline. I use a browser addition called LeechBlock to limit the time I spend daily on Facebook and blogs. These personal boundaries become very hard to stick to, though, if you use social networks like Facebook to communicate with people about projects you work on.

Nonetheless, we have to recognise that information overload is not a personal problem of people who cannot control their browsing habits or keep their inbox clean: it is a far reaching societal issue in a world where immediacy expected in communication, causing stress to both senders and receivers. It is our task to break down the notion of having to be ‘always on’ as factor of success, and act lenient on (or even appreciate?) those who decide to limit their online presence.

Comments
Thank you for reading, let me know your thoughts! --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 12:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC) @Chickpeanut I should first say that I really like the way you have designed you page. Now on the post, it gives quite good points of view that I agree with. I am also using AdBlocker type of application, however, they are more than one. It seems to me that people get frustrated when they get too informed (about anything), but they always try to gain as much knowledge as possible. What do you think about this? Thanks! Gvg00001 (discuss • contribs) 14:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! You are right, there seems to be two types of information overload: On the one hand, people block ads, emails, and even use blockers for social networks in order not to be overrun by information. But at the same time, people constantly get distracted and browse the internet, reading blogs, or funny articles, or just looking at funny pictures for hours. I think both go hand in hand. Because most people are overwhelmed by the amount of information we absorb every day (one of my lecturers spoke of several thousand ads we see every day), we try to escape into entertainment in order not to have to deal with it. Think about procrastinating for an essay. There is so many books on our fingertips we could read on one topic that it seems easier to turn to Facebook for some time than actually fighting through the jungle of information in order to access the truly valuable (= relevant) pieces of information. When you say 'try to gain as much knowledge as possible', I think it's more a case of 'try to escape knowledge as much as possible' - or how much do you actually remember of the last funny listing you read? I'm not saying this is a bad thing at all! We all suffer from it at some point or another. That's just information overload, that's the way it's going, and we have to find our own personal 'coping mechanisms' without completely losing ourselves in escapism. --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 17:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

So finally I am on your discussion page. :) Firstly I'd like to say that I like your postings, they are very well structured and neat. It is easy to access the information needed. Reading your post now, I get to understand your approach, that not the individuals are to blame, much better. And yes I agree with a lot of this. What I really find interesting is your habit of ad avoidance - me working in this area I am a huge fan of good advertisement, especially TV ad (I barely skip commercial breaks), but on the internet I use ad blockers, too. Why is that, do you think? For instance I really like your neat page, everything looks very cleaned up and I really don't like reading post with no separate paragraphs, or with a lot of advert around it blinking non-stop asking me to find out, who in my neighbourhood is available right now ;). Maybe I have the feeling to be overloaded by information? But then why do I enjoy watching TV ads so much, where most campaigns are bursting and come up with a big tadaaa!? And even if you say, that you don't like watching TV ads or TV either, sometimes in movies we are overloaded with information, in action movies there is so much happening at the same time - but we enjoy watching these (I mean this is extra information that our brain has to process)? - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 19:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think your talk page is just so overcrowded because typing an idea is just so much messier than just saying it! I've pretty much answered on your discussion page, nonetheless I'd like to pick up the advertising idea that you mention, because there is a really funny coincidence: I hate most ads, yet I am taking a marketing course as my third module and think about going into marketing once I finish uni. Why is that? I think this harks back to the idea I mentioned before: It's not necessarily the fact that there is ads or the ads themselves that are annoying to us. It's the ads that irrelevant, annoying, offensive, or simply in our face that really annoy us - because we do not choose to see them, but they add on top of the overload we already experience. I do like watching/viewing clever ads or marketing campaigns, because I actively seek them out. I find them interesting and they benefit me. If Facebook shows me an ad trying to sell holidays on the Canary Islands, I couldn't be less interested, therefore it annoys me. This might be one of the reasons why platforms like Facebook & Google try to more and more target their ads to your specific needs. The more relevant they are, the more likely we actually are to appreciate them. I certainly know about quite a few people who say they actively keep their ads unblocked because they are relevant and interesting to them... But I suppose blocking out everything that we do not actively seek closes to loop back to Sirrinari's bubble: This will just cause us to have one-sided opinions, therefore having some content imposing itself on us might benefit a more balanced world view. So if you keep content unblocked, you get spammed with irrelevant stuff. If you block it, you choose to stay in your bubble. What a dilemma! Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 16:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a dilemma! And it is very interesting to read your point of view about advertising, too. Maybe I can add another point to the discussion: Even if we don't have all the possibilities to block ad or even if we don't have all the digital means, people living a couple of years ago (so not as far as the middle ages), they had other media types, i.e. newspapers or television. Because, there are gatekeeper filtering the information load, people had the feeling that they are not as overwhelmed, as we are nowadays. But, wasn't (and isn't it still) that a kind of bubble as well? - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 12:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That's true, nonetheless just because we don't read newspapers anymore doesn't mean we don't have gatekeepers. People use meta news platforms such as Reddit. Google has an algorithm, so has Facebook. I guess there is no such thing as not having a bubble, we can only try to reduce is by keeping an open mind, talking to as many different people with different opinions (that's why I personally love travelling)... or going on Fox News once a week...? --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 13:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Heyǃ I just wanted to expand on this thread speaking about Adblock and ads online particular to SchrumpflinH's comment. I think there is definitely a different attitude to adverts online versus adverts on television for example. I think those on television we have become used to and expect to be there, we can switch off and chat with those around us during them or go get a snack. It is an allocated amount of time that people know is there, whereas internet ads come at you from everywhere constantly. It's not like you can take a break before every YouTube video you watch because you know that's the only ad you'll see for a certain amount of content. No, a 2 minute video could have a 3 minute ad and the next video could have the same and so on and so on. Secondly, I think it's the fact that the internet has replaced most forms of leisure activity that would previously have been done materially, such as reading a book or playing a game, and because we never expected adverts to get in the way of us doing these activities it's frustrating that they now do. I think if adverts had their own place and time, rather than unlimited reign online with everyone trying to make a quick bit of cash from adding them to their site/video/art then they'd be more tolerable and less people would use Adblock. To get back on topic, this would reduce information overload because I think it's the persistence of adverts rather than them being there at all that contributes to an excess of information. After all, every dystopian film I've ever seen plays on this invasiveness of adverts. There's an episode of Black Mirror that addresses it pretty head on, Fifteen Million Merits, unfortunately I can't link the episode here but it's on Netflix. --HoDstripes (discuss • contribs) 15:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You definitely have a point in a lot of what you say! I think the idea of us being used to certain advertisements and not others is true. I, for example, hardly ever watch TV, instead I watch a lot of films or YouTube. If I watch TV at someone's place, I get very annoyed with ads, as they are very surprising and rip you out of the experience. But there is also the other factor I think, which is more important than whether you're being used to it: the invasiveness of ads. Video + audio ads are perceived a lot more annoying (by me at least) than just silent video ads, or even just banners. Have you ever had the situation that someone in the room was watching TV and you couldn't help but look up every few seconds to see what's happening? It's because we can look away, but we cannot not listen! So, to conclude, the degree to which advertisents annoy us depend on the context (e.g. being at home chatting through ad breaks), whether we expect them, and how invasive they are. I like how this discussion is really rolling here! --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 20:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading your post and I like how you said that information overload is not a personal but rather a social problem. When I can't quit Facebook I tend to think what a lazy person I am, not getting any work done. Eventhough now that you mentioned LeechBlock, I know that there's an option for that, but I'd like to think that the problem is not with me. I have been thinking about leaving Facebook recently, because I find it very addictive and time consuming, but I don't want to lose all my friends and work contacts, so I guess I'll have to find another solution. --Evp09 (discuss • contribs) 23:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You're posts are very well structured and appear very professional! I think you're point on how information overload as being an individual problem as well as a greater social problem as a whole is very profound and you're ideas of self-restraint through apps such as adblocker are a great counter to our own impulsive need to continually distract ourselves from our work and perhaps reality. Referencing you're reading is also very useful. Could you perhaps direct me to a page that depicts the process of creating this? I think this would be a great asset to in contributing to the wikibook project as a whole. Many thanks. AdamB95 (discuss • contribs) 12:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Thank you for taking the time to comment! SchrumpflinH found  this good explanation of how to reference. You need to do it in text with the mark-up   and  , and then add a section with the code   at the appropriate point at the end of your text. But best to read through the instructions for more detailed guidance. Also check out this page to have some general help with wiki mark up. Hope this helps!--Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 14:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Exercise #4 - Reflective Account
There is many points one can take away from an experience of trying to collaborate with 26 other people. One of them is certainly: Don’t collaborate with 26 people (unless you really have to).

The image in my head of how many people worked on our Wikibooks chapter.

When Surowiecki is talking about the “wisdom of crowds”, he is referring to the benefits of diverse opinions and how specialised knowledge of different disciplines can result in something better than the sum of its components. This worked in our Wikibooks project as soon as our chapter was split into smaller sub-topics which each student could research in-depth. Nonetheless, the short time that we were given does not guarantee that we can already count as ‘experts’, as we tend to use the material that is most accessible, rather than which is most relevant.

Lanier notes rightly that Wikis rely heavily on continuous review by members to find mistakes. However, when I checked the editing history of the page today, I found that since the day of hand-in, no one has actually made any changes to either chapter or discussion page. This indicates that there was no measure of quality control by any Wikibooks contributors or other people accessing the page. Therefore, Lanier is correct in his scepticism concerning the trustful attitude of internet users towards Wiki projects.

Christian Fuchs describes Wikipedia as the optimal communal space: Everyone is co-creating, accessing and modifying knowledge equally. In working on the Wikibooks chapter, it became more and more apparent that this is based on the assumption that every person online has equal knowledge/ willingness to contribute. This has turned out to be untrue. In fact, there is a certain hierarchy online, not based on real-life authority, but on individual contribution. A few people in our group have started early and laid the foundational structure of the chapter and have subsequently be regarded as ‘leading’ contributors.

For example, I have personally been asked multiple times what topic I consider most appropriate for people to contribute to – this however was an entirely democratic process in which every person was able to choose what was in their interest. This may or may not indicate that humans naturally seek some type of confirmation from some type of leading figure, even when presented with a perfectly democratic structure.

Referring to Wikibooks specifically, there were several notable barriers for us as ‘newbies’, especially Wiki mark-up. While there were instructions available, they were not easily accessible, and required a level of deeper engagement. Indeed, most people learned the mark-up by copying others’ edits, and there were notable differences between the chapter discussions, based on the person that had the most mark-up knowledge in the group and therefore set the tone of ‘professionalism’.

Especially for referencing questions, a very clear understanding of procedures was necessary, which could not have been achieved through collective agreement. Instead, I myself just set a referencing format and gave others instructions and links. The fact that people happily adopted the suggested strategies rather than trying to optimise the system further confirmed that there is the online hierarchy previously mentioned.

Further adding to the ‘exclusivity’ of Wikibooks was the fact that our first Wikipedia articles got largely deleted by admins, being considered ‘spam’. It wasn’t obvious to us that we weren’t allowed to use our discussion page for trialling the platform (given that ‘Wikipedia doesn’t have any formal rules’), and it was equally hard for markers to find where the guidelines for class projects were. Admins, despite Wikipedia’s “Don’t bite the newbies” guideline, seemed very quick to delete content without notifying editors, which can be a very off-putting experience for new members.

Lastly, Wiki pages were in very plain format, which made them very unstructured. This stalled discussions as soon as they were in full swing, due to people losing overview. The layout, especially when editing, was very complicated and time-consuming to muddle through each edit. For example, Wiki tables were inaccessible for some due to them only displaying in HTML in the edit box. It would be easy for Wikimedia to enable editing with a more user-friendly interface, as well as establishing a more structured page layout (e.g. by expanding and contracting individual subtopics).

However, after all criticism, one can say that Wikibooks was probably the ‘least bad’ choice for a class collaboration of this size, given its unification of other platform’s strengths, such as notifications (Social Media), real-time collaboration (Google Docs), specialisation of knowledge (Essays) and online mark-up (Blogs).

For future projects, it would be appropriate to have more initial offline guidance. A pre-existing structure, such as formatting and referencing guidelines, would have put every contributor on an equal starting level. The way we conducted the project seems unfair and frustrating at best.

Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 21:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments
Add your thoughts below! Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 21:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I really like what you have wrote and agree with some points, however, I did have some questions about certain things which I hope you could clarify, I noticed you mentioned that you said that the process was completely democratic, however would you not agree that due to having time constraints and not being with your class before the deadline for choosing groups would conflict with this point, as well as that if members were unable to find themselves a group then it would be up to Greg to locate us into different groups with subjects we may not have picked. However, I completely agree with the Wiki Mark Up points you have made, because I myself have followed on the recommendations of my peers. Finally, would you think that more offline guidance would be the best way to deal with WikiBooks, rather than an online tutorial with possible video based components designed to walk through a user on the best way to deal with the site, admittedly your suggestion also does carry a lot of merit, but I would suggest a quiz that if somebody fails to reach a certain threshold then they would be required to re-attempt certain aspects in order to improve user-interface and awareness to different scenarios that could be possibly encountered. AdilAslam1 (discuss • contribs) 09:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey To your first point, the act of picking a group was not what I meant. Yes, some people were assigned to groups late, however they could have chosen a group easily (considering there was quite some Facebook talk about group formation on social media). What I actually meant, though, was the idea of "Who picks what topic" within the chapter, which was nobody's choice. People could themselves select a topic they want to contribute to, or even make a new one if the ones suggested didn't suit them. You could say it was almost anarchic, as everyone could initially do what they wanted to (under the restraint that chosen topics would have to do at least marginally with our chapter topic). So yes, I believe that the act of picking a topic was very democratic.
 * To your second point, the idea of a tutorial is very good and definitely better than an offline course. The point remains the same from both of us here, that we should have been given more instructions how to use the Wiki mark up, and making sure all students started out on the same level. Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * thanks for clarifying, i see what you mean, i think its definitely the way you described it, or at least people picking the topic that they "least didn't like", its definitely an issue not knowing enough of the site before being put into this topic! AdilAslam1 (discuss • contribs) 07:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

*Throws hands in the air* I wipe my hands of this project entirely and I fully agree with nearly everything you said. The picture is glorious. I was interested to see what you had to say specifically about this project, due to the fact that you and I (and Rosie and a few others in our seminar) were really in the weeds of it. First, I liked the formatting of this post - instead of focusing on one individual thinker, I thought the way you briefly touched upon all of them and added an example of your own that really encompassed all of the ideas about collective intelligence as it played out in our project. I really identified and connected with your comment about the hierarchy. I think, personally, it's almost impossible to have a group that size and not have a natural hierarchy that is created. That's a natural, human need - some people work better with a bark of leadership guiding their actions (be it in a classroom or online). Since we didn't really have any guidance for this project whatsoever and was left entirely to ourselves, we created almost a version of a social experiment on cooperation. Fuchs' comment about how Wikipedia works because everyone wants to be there was proven massively wrong by this project, but I think the concept itself is sound. Normally on Wikipedia, people only work on the pages they have an "expert" knowledge about and then only when they want to. In this situation, we were forced to participate for a grade and therefore I think it was obvious (annoying, but obvious) that a hierarchy would form. Some people didn't want to do the work and would gratefully wait until someone dumped a bunch of information on them and said "go". Some didn't even bother and just wanted to let those who did 'want' to do the work do it all. The competition aspect of it didn't really help either - at the beginning, I felt my grade would only be good if I had the most edits and contributions, so it felt almost like I constantly needed to be on the page. Later on in the project, that lessened, but it surprised me still that I felt it to begin with. I suppose collective intelligence only works when we're all free to do as we like. Thoughts? Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 13:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback, although after reading your post I did find that focusing on one key text like that of Fuchs was a very smart move on your part! And I answered most of your remaining thoughts on your talk page already. But you are right, the way we conducted the Wikibooks project was entirely different from the 'normal' Wikipedia setting, therefore we cannot really make any inferences about the effectiveness of collective intelligence through our work. It was really rather, as you said, more of a social experiment than an attempt of a group of students to produce a high quality piece of work. Which is kind of cool if you study that topic, actually, but had little to do with conveying the core ideas from the module to us students. It's more like an experiment of forcing students in a perfectly non-authoritarian setting, observing how they figure out how to structure themselves under time pressure. Sociology, maybe? I'm sure Rosi would be interested in that type of thing! --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 23:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi I have nothing more to add to Hannah's comment, I had to laugh, when I saw the picture, I can really relate to that feeling. As we all discussed structure in the post and comments already, I'd like to pick up the democratic part you mentioned in your post and share some of my thoughts/observations. As Fuchs was stating Wikipedia relates a lot to communism, so this ressource, the collective intelligence belongs to the public and therefore it is the mob, the consent of many, which can remodel, change and create or remove it. Nevertheless, I find it so interesting, that people do strive for a leader and asked you (and I know some people experienced the same, me included), as if you could allow or forbid anything. And if I look back at my first experiences on Wikipedia, when my and many other posts where deleted by a so felt executive power, a police or guard (?), then I think, that working collaboratively, working democratically, does not mean there is no hierarchy. I mean, even in our "real world" democracies we have leaders and and executive, legislative and judicature, because we as society need rules, on which we can rely on, which ensure a (peaceful) living together. Honestly my opinion is, that as soon as the majority agrees on something, a rule is created - even if it's not written down. And collaborating on Wikibooks is also a way of participating in a society. And the Wiki platform itself has rules, too (look at the 5 pillars for instance). And collaborating on a certain page in this project also was participating in a comparatively small (but still considerable) society - but (!) we had no rules. Finally having a leader is a key asset, when it comes to conflicts, misunderstandings, not knowing the rules or needing someone to dictate the rules, when people just cannot agree. There are a couple of behavioural researches, which explain, how dynamics in any kind of groups perform and one statement is, that the felt leader, does not has to be the official leader, but he can be admired because of his knowledge, age, long working time on the project or character. Maybe this is the reason people asked you for advice or "permission"? Or maybe, some were also to lazy or uncapable to work through the groups structure and trusted you to be the expert? - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 23:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I see you mentioned me in a comment, and yes you are right, between all the chaos that the Wikibook was, I did actually find it very interesting as a social experiment. I wonder if it is our culture of a democracy with big leaders, or maybe it is actually just human (which is a very un-sociological thing to claim!) that we automatically search leaders or accept leading roles. Doing so is actually quite sad, because people don't feels as if they are equal participants, which should be the base of a platform like wikipedia, shouldn't it? But on the other hand, also for the ones that almost automatically become leaders it is difficult; I really saw that it stressed you a lot and that you didn't mean to be this kind of spokesperson for our group. I'm wondering what could be solutions to this problem. How could everyone be happy in a group work environment? What I learned in face to face groups is that it is really important to take a lot of time to give everyone the opportunity to say what they think. But in the case of online collaboration, I wonder if it the common perception would not probably be that one person works more effectively alone.. Which is sad, actually.. Rosane linde (discuss • contribs) 09:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have found your entry particularly interesting, as it does reflect pretty well how myself feel about the project and also the way that it has been handled, although we are from two different "chapters". I did not think at all about the quality control that you mention after the hand-in date, and that prompted me to go and have a look at ours and at them moment there are about 430 pending changes, which I think only proves your and Lanier's point! Moreover, I agree with you about the notion of hierarchy, which I've used too and so have many of the users that I worked with on our page. As you mentioned, the "hierarchy" that was created is not based on any real-life authority but only on individual contribution. This means that people who have started early and laid foundation and structure only showed an interest in defining a way of proceeding that was beneficial for everyone. Likewise, I think you perfectly got the point about "leading" contributors. In our group, this happened too and some users, myself included, were appointed as such, but mostly in negative terms where the "good part" has evidently been ignored. As you said, this was no reflection of a real-life status and at least personally I had no previous experience or clue about wiki markups, which is often a notion that people who felt left out mention as an excuse. I believe that we all had to make an effort to learn how to work on wikipedia, but not everyone was eager to go an extra mile to define how. Moreover, as you have also said, those "leading contributors" were often asked to fix mistakes on both the book and the discussion page when people messed up. I personally think it's too easy to require help from your peers but also accuse them of being a dictatorial party (yes I've read a thing like this on some of my fellows' pages) when they then try to give a structure for everyone to benefit from. That is, you can't appoint people as "leading" contributors when it's of benefit for you and then call them names when they do in fact appear as "leaders". It's easier to complain about what has been done than to do something (possibly in time) to change what you don't like. Now, I do not deny the fact that I am competitive and usually like for things to have a certain shape and have them "under control", but, and correct me on that, I feel like some people used the excuse of "it is a collaborative project" to actually mask the little willingness they had to go that extra mile to i.e. frequently check the page, add topics or nicely present the content, while also relying and expecting those same "leaders" to solve all the technical aspects, minding that we (I think you feel the same way about this) did not want to have this role in the first place. Because you worked on another page but our experiences feel so similar, I wonder if there is not some underlying pattern on how these type of collaborative projects actually play out on the "Civic" web. --Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 12:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I really liked your entry, and much like the others I too, felt that the picture summed but the experience perfectly. What you had to say was very interesting, and I found all those points too. Especially with the 'social experiment' type of situation you found yourself in. Perhaps many found themselves in this position because they started the project earlier than the main bulk of the group. I find that this is a situation that happens off-line as well. I find that when I charge forward towards an assignment many people tend to think that I have some sort of greater knowledge than they do, but that is just not the case. We as humans do tend to look for some sort of leadership as guidelines and others are more than happy creating the paths, or their own in some cases. I think most people did follow because of the lack of structure you mentioned with the plain text discussion section. When you stated you wished there was a simpler way of viewing the pages and writing on them, I suddenly remembered a fellow student telling me about the edit option which is available on the actual wikibook page. Of course this would come up once we were finished as I think knowing this it would have eliminated the stress a lot of people seemed to find with the 'coding' which the wikibook writing came with.  I found your last statement, about the possible underlying pattern really interesting. One has to think that these tendencies pop up with collaborative projects. I tend to agree with you after reading the all the feedback. Perhaps this is something which comes up because everyone had the same assignment, but it does make me wonder on a larger scale of collective intelligence projects. PurpleHan (discuss • contribs) 22:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do agree with you that perhaps this was because we all had the same assignment. Maybe if we identified sections and areas of expertise early on, granted that we would be graded on that equally, things would have turned out differently, although I think this would have been a deviation from the actual intention of the project. So yes, I wonder like you about how larger-scale projects are defined. Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 12:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikibooks Discussion: Hacking
Deleted. The project is over, therefore the information is not needed anymore. Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 21:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
Consistent engagement and time-management throughout the project period meant that you were able to amass contribs in both quantity and quality. Your contributions to chapter content are very impressive: you seem to be either sole or main contributor to a number of sections (all very well written, with interwiki and external links, cited scholarship and a wide range of sources both academic and topical used to inform discussion of concepts and phenomena) and later in the period you devote a fair amount of time to fixes and wikignoming. All of these contribs in sum made a significant difference to the page as a whole.

Wiki Exercises


 * 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.

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives an outstanding brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is an excellent 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 an extremely wide range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

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

Engagement (weighted 50%)

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

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 14:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)