User talk:ChrisintheHat

Hi, my name is ChrisintheHat, and I am doing a class project at the University of Stirling and I am looking forward to learning and contributing on Wikibooks.

Wiki Exercise #1 What Makes A Good Wiki?
My experience of online collaboration I think exposes both the striking positive and negative attributes that interaction based websites such as social media or informative sites such as this possess. Social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram are marketed towards impulsive behaviour, reflected in their colourful, simplistic and intuitive interface that encourages users to engage with others. It's clear to see that the entire ethos of these sites is not only the communicative aspects of liking, commenting and sharing posts that you see but the ability to have a glimpse into other people's lives without any repercussion. The emphasis on photo's on social media offers an experience previously alien to people, and one I think especially appeals to the millenial generations; their growing up with modern technology coupled with the adolescent age group creates an envornment in which social standing dominates some people's lives. Being at a time where how others percieve you and how socially accepted you are, social media gives fuel to these anxieties by allowing access to what previously was private moments in others lives. For example, twenty years ago if you wanted to see a classmates photographs from their party you would have to be shown by them personally, something which they probably wouldn't be carrying on them. Skip ahead to now and you can practically relive the night yourself, viewing them at your leisure and if you wish, anonymously. This drastic change in the way which we see and hear about the world around us is one of the major ways online collaboration has changed the way in which people like myself see the world.

Contrastingly, wiki engagement and other informative sites are more focussed on the collection and sharing of knowledge whilst encouraging discussion and debate about those ideas. Whilst Facebook does share news articles and ideas, it is not to the same level of reliability and the reactive posts that are common on social media disrupt lively debate with often inarticulate ideas. Civility is at the core of Wiki engagement, and the warm friendly atmosphere is encouraged as to promote the drive for the encyclopedia to have the right knowledge. Somewhat positioned between Wikipedia and Social Media is Reddit, a site based on the online collaboration of others in which topics and ideas are discussed through threads. Often celebrities will hold AMA's (Ask Me Anything) sessions in which people can pose questions to them. I think this level of engagement, the ability for a wee boy from Glasgow to be able to ask Ringo Starr why he hasn't fixed his nose is an example of the incredible possibilities these online social sites provide. I enjoy going on these sites but rarely interact myself, largely due to the already huge number of people that are using it already and I often find that I can find what I'm looking for already, whether it be just interesting discussions or specific questions.ChrisintheHat (discuss • contribs) 09:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wiki Exercise #1


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


 * 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 and your comments, you ought to pay more attention to proofreading work before submitting (on any assessment really). This will help to give you the polish and detail needed at this level. Additionally, to help with this, making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would go a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, as you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this will make a considerable difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, if a little brief. Remember that the comments are "worth" as much as posts themselves. The reason for this is not only to help encourage discussion (a key element of wiki collaboration!) but also to get you to reflect upon your own work. This can all, of course be used to fuel ideas that might form part of your project work.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 09:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a great summary of online collaboration. The comparisons drawn between social media and Wiki are clear and well laid out. The argument surrounding Facebook being an often unreliable source of news is grounded in real life experience and the comments on the Reddit platform show that research has been done into some of what Reddit consists of. Overall this is a good summary, which makes clear points in a well laid out manner. However there are a few spelling mistakes that need to be corrected. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 12:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi ChrisintheHat, my name is Bricedoesn'tlikehighfives and i found this piece to be very informative about not only your own social media experience and usage but about the altering factors between Wiki pages and Facebook pages. The points arisen about privacy (mainly through Facebook) and civility ("at the core" of Wiki pages) were well made and written eloquently in an easy-to-read style. Bringing up another social media media platform (*information sharing/discussion-page platform) in Reddit added to the fullness of the piece and gave an interesting insight into one form of social engagement i had previously been unaware of. The point made that it is possible to view and access information (through pictures/text etc.) without actually having to contribute to or "interact" with said info, is an interesting thought also, not only into your personal experience but also as part of a public sphere, who can stand back and witness "interesting discussion" and access relevant information almost anonymously. In all, the piece gives a broad personal and universal introduction into some of the qualitative differences between Wiki engagement and other social media engagement. In agreement with Reuben1058, the piece does have spelling mistakes and at times the wording of some sentences could be clearer. Bricedoesn&#39;tlikehighfives (discuss • contribs) 14:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2 Visibility and Data Trails
The way in which information and data is collected online is something that I find altogether frightening. As we discussed in week two, our online identity is something which is altogether different than our real selves. We portray ourselves in the best possible manner, especially so on social media, by posting heavily edited pictures and highlighting the best parts of our lives for others to see. However, sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram mask their true functions beneath the facadé of communicative and social communication. Even search engines such as the giant Google gather and sell the search patterns and history of users. The information that is collected by these sites exposes the the true extent of how visible we really are online.

Business sites such as LinkedIn are an exclusion to the more dishonest way in which information is collected, as the information shared there is shared purely to further the career prospects of those who create accounts. The sharing of that information is vital for it's success, and the information gathered can be of a benefit to those that are shared. In contrast, the data collection in Gaming networks is in my opinion the most unacceptable way that information is gathered and sold to advertisers, retailers and other sites. Many of those who have online gaming profiles are children below the age of 18, yet they find themselves being bombarded with advertisements and offers based on their gaming patterns and trends. I struggle to see how anyone could defend this blatant manipulation of children to extract valuable market research without their knowledge and then subsequently use similar information to try and persuade children to spend more of their parents money. It poses an important question about the ethical nature of data trails and how much of our information is available for others to see.

It's natural to assume that what we post online is ours in some way, protected by the sites we post them on. In reality we own very little of the content we create online, which only exposes us more to the harbouring of our information online to be collected. Advertisers harbour much of our search engines results, something which is easy to ignore but is clear to see once you look for it. Such is the extent that social media sites, search engines and online retailers collaborate and sell each others data information from their users that by looking on Google for a certain product can result in Amazon adverts of the same product appearing on your Facebook page, and following a famous Instagram account can result in this person being suggested as a possible person to follow on Twitter. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that we as the users of these sites only see the very tip of an iceberg of information that we create that is produced entirely for the websites themselves. As Dyer-Witheford coined, the "intensification	and extension of informational commodities" is something that we as the frequent visitors of these sites are blissfully unaware of, but for the sites themselves is the core way in which they create revenue, resulting in a culture in which our own personal information and interests has become big business. ChrisintheHat (discuss • contribs) 11:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #2
Hello ChrisintheHat, I found your article to be incredibly interesting and insightful. Your comments on the exploitative way information is used on gaming platforms were particularly interesting as I often use these services and have never thought about the advertisements in relation to these issues before. Furthermore, the post is strengthened by the addition of the Dyer-Witheford quote as it is both relevant and provides academic reinforcement of the post you have written. Furthermore, the large number of real world examples used help to further strengthen the quality of the post, especially as many, including myself, experience these such as Google searches resulting in other sites using that information against you. Overall, i feel you have written an excellent post. MurrayHighFive (discuss • contribs) 20:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Christinthehat, your article shows a great understanding of the current online climate. Your uneasy feelings with regards to data collection is a common feeling amongst a great number of people, including myself. I found your inclusion of many different social media sites, some of which I would never have thought about mentioning (such as linkedin) to be an interesting take on the analysis of online data trails. Your views regarding online gaming platforms are equally interesting, and I agree that it's particularly concerning that children are being spied upon and targeted with adverts tailored to their online activities. The decision to use a quotation, one which is particularly pertinent to this topic, is an effective way of conveying the damage that data trails can cause, and the privacy invasion that so many sites partake in. In other articles I would suggest including more of your personal experiences on social media websites, as this would allow the reader to better empathise with your point of view. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 22:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3 Information Overload
The vast amount of information that is on the internet can be and often is overwhelming. When searching for something specific I often find myself being distracted by the many results that come up, the many links that are scattered across articles and the trailers and advertisements along the side of web pages. Wikipedia itself is arguably the easiest website to get distracted on as it houses such a dense collection information. To focus whilst online I personally find it best to have music or Netflix playing on a seperate window in the background as it means if my mind does wander my work remains open and visible and I can resume what I was doing easily. It negates the need for me to take interest in anything other than what I'm supposed to be doing as I've already got something. I find that dealing with distraction in this way cuts down the time I waste online as it takes away any desire to investigate something off topic that I've seen as I work. My mind doesn't wander because there is already something in the background that is of interest to me whilst I work.

Working on the Wikibook, my workflow has changed quite considerably due to the nature of the site I'm working on. Unlike writing an essay, the collaborative nature of the Wikibook project has meant that the majority of the work I have done so far has revolved around it's relevance, legitamacy and connection with the research conducted by others in my group. This has meant that my workflow has become overall a more slow burn, with less moments of consisting writing as I would do when writing an essay and instead a cycle of gathering information, sharing it, see what other's in the group think and coming back to it. It is altogether a very different workflow to any other academic project I've done as it relies very much on not just what we create together as group but how we've created it, whereas usually what I've put together myself is the most important thing. ChrisintheHat (discuss • contribs) 10:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Ex#3
Hi Chris, this is a good article on the struggles of vast information on the internet, however it is a little short. Your views on Wikipedia are insightful and I too have occassionally become caught up browsing the thousands, if not millions, of articles. I find it interesting that having media playing in the background helps you to concentrate, as personally I get distracted very easily if I have a TV show on when I'm working. However I do understand your logic for choosing to have media in the background. Your comments on the Wikibook project align with my own thoughts and experience so far. The slow burn nature of writing a WikiBook in a group is a good observation, and I agree that it is a very different workflow to anything I've ever done before.Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 12:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Chris, I have found your article to be an interesting read which echoes many of the other exercise #3 posts i have read. A lot of individuals have admitted to being easily distracted when it comes to using the internet and struggle to maintain a clear focus. I find the way you deal with such distraction interesting because personally, i would not be able to have anything on in the background as my work would never reach an end. As we are in the same Wikibook project group, i fully understand the way in which workflow has been affected and agree with your statements. Overall this is an interesting read which answers the questions set well. MurrayHighFive (discuss • contribs) 12:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4 Wikibook Project Reflective Account
I found the Wikibook project an interesting and overall benefactory experience. Actually using and engaging with one of the largest online platforms revealed how the site actually worked, and greatened my understanding of collaborative information online.

Using Wikibooks to engage and communicate with others in my group proved to be an entirely different experience to the sort of messaging platforms I am used to using such as Facebook or Twitter. Instead of an instant messaging system, the way the website archives and lays out the mdiscussion pages is clearly geared towards a more relfective and interactive system. Although I struggled to sometimes keep up with the stream of messages as we formatted the layout, I did recognise the benefits of having the messages stored and displayed in a way that allowed me to re-read and dissect what had been discussed as it lended itself to the editing of the Wikibook itself. It also helped create a hub of information from which the group were working on, building a repertoire of information and past experiences that became an invaluable resource as we put together our chapter.

Engaging with each other, reviewing each others work and ideas, forced me to engage more with the project as I found myself feeling more involved with what was happening. Being able to read other people's ideas in context with the project helped flesh out ideas and structured how we were going to approach the project. The information based system that Wikibooks operated on kept the project on track and stopped the rising of any distraction or off topic ideas. Actually working on the site to create the project helped me get used to how everything worked and built my confidence to approach my task.

Having every contribution recorded, dated and on public show made me think far more about what I was contributing. I realised that privacy was one of the things I valued most on my other messaging applications, along with the somewhat finite lifespan of instant messagers. Knowing that I was building a record of everything I had contributed on Wikibooks was therefore a jarring experience that made me read and re-read whatever I added, and reflect on how little I do this in other avenues. Compared to real life, the communicative aspect of Wikibooks was a far more formal and strict medium; I felt as if I couldn't speak to people as I would on Facebook or in real life, and had to add something of worth before I spoke. It made me see that although what we do online is very vulnerable to being viewed by others, I valued my privacy online far above anything else. ChrisintheHat (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #4
Hello Chris, I found your most recent wiki article to be representative of some of my own thoughts on the wikibook project. Your comments on how different the wiki communications system is were particularly relatable as i too experienced difficulty when trying to navigate the vast number of member posts. Also the way in which you describe how engagement in group work allows for your own ideas to be developed as well as improving your work as a whole echoes some aspects behind collective intelligence. Your reference to the privacy aspect of the project provoked thought on my own experience with the project as previously i had not thought about how displaying my work on an easily accessible platform affected the outcome. Overall, i feel your article appropriately reflects the experiences many shared whilst participating in the wikibook project. MurrayHighFive (discuss • contribs) 00:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)
The introduction section is incredibly well-written, and summarises some of the points which follow. I think that a concerted effort could have been made to narrativize the chapter before proceeding to the discussion proper. The overall structure that follows is well thought out, and evidences deliberation, delegation and timely organisation. Coverage of many of the salient issues surrounding the relationship between technology and self are included, although the overall feel of the chapter tends towards high-end description, rather than analysis, debate and argument.

That said, some of the sections are incredibly detailed and well written. Where theorists are listed, often it is the case that the coverage is characterised by a list of accomplishments next to some biographical and bibliographical detail – without going into discussion and application of the theories themselves. Here, you have managed to avoid the trap of biographical list, but the movement towards discussion and application of the theories could have been more detailed and applied to the issues under discussion in the chapter.

Some of the sections are really well written, but lack evidence of research – particularly in drawing from any peer-reviewed material, which is essential to helping establish a written argument. The whole section on “Forms of self-representation” for example, has large chucks of text that contain no reference to this kind of material (although, to be fair, there are some interwiki links apparent). Again drawing from this section as an example, there could have been more use made of interwiki links to other chapters.

This could have benefitted the chapter enormously. Such interwiki links could have been extended to include more reference to other chapters in the book, such as connecting your subsection on “distrust of AI” and “newspapers facing decline” to the chapters on Online/real-life divide and news, evidence and memory respectively. This could also be useful in relation to interwiki links on the same chapter: for example, the whole section on blog/online diaries – I would have thought this would follow on quite neatly from the discussion of Jill Walker Rettberg’s work, particularly in relation to her book Blogging! (This section didn’t have a single link or reference, and where the relevance to concepts in this chapter may be considered self-evident to the author, it is the author’s job to connect these ideas through argumentation).

Later sections (including the material on dating sites, gaming and video) are much stronger in this regard, and do all of the necessary things outlined above that are missing from other sections.

Overall, reasonably well put together, especially considering the number of total students working on the chapter.


 * 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


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