User talk:Dalal22

Hello everyone, my name is Dalal. I am a university student working on a project and I am interested in exploring Wikibooks.

Wiki exercise exercise #1
Other types of social media such as Instagram, Pinterest, Facebook or Twitter for example are platforms to share ideas, techniques and information. comparing them with Wikipedia which is a lot more informative and formal. From my personal experience i have found that expression is a lot more acceptable in other platforms that can be betrayed as rude or inappropriate. Another thing i have noticed that Wikipedia requiters a lot more coding's in comparison with instagram for example while the is buttons for almost all the interactions you need or you can make. While looking for a ways to back this point up i have found a page on Wikipedia called Help:Wiki markup.

Behavior changes are a lot different when interacting threw Wikipedia, for example someone who can freely express their opinion on a subject on Facebook do not display personal opinion threw Wikipedia. Instead they choose to provide facts, an example to better explain this point is that if someone watches "Pretty little lairs" and has an obsession can argue that it is the best series out there. However, they do not include that statement as it may offend other users and it is personal opinion and not informative facts. Another reason for Behavior changes is that on Wikipedia everything seems to be monitored and can be tracked. According to | F.J. Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson, Mangement and the Worker p.427 it states that "People act differently when they are watches".

Wikipedia also lacks instant or real time messaging which makes it a lot harder to compare it with Instagram or Twitter. a more reasonable and fair compression would be to sending an Email however it is saved and available for public viewing. the less informative yet very similar is Reddit which operates with forms yet the biggest diffrences between the two are that people on Reddit can freely use slang, informal speech and that it does not need to be accurate all the time because people can share oersonal opinion and not simply just facts.

Dalal22 (discuss • contribs) 20:46, 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.


 * Poor. Among other things, poor entries may just offer links without real comment or apparent point. They may offer nothing more than poor-quality synopsis or description of material of dubious relevance. They may have serious clarity problems (including dead links, random graphics) which affect comprehension (or even worse, admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement). They might be off-topic, private trivia, or of unclear relevance. The wiki markup formatting will be of a poor standard.


 * 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, the finish is a little off - you ought to proofread anything that you submit for assessment. In addition, the statement Wikipedia also lacks instant or real time messaging which makes it a lot harder to compare it with Instagram or Twitter. - you have hit upon a really interesting aspect of online communities and collaboration. Referring to research on synchronous and asynchronous media might be a way to explore this idea further in project work? Also, checking links to see if they work is really important.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – none undertaken. This would effectively halve your mark.

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

I agree, Wikipedia is definitely not designed to be ultra user friendly like social media platforms are. You make a good point about behavior changes. I think another reason there's such changes is due to the fact that on Wikipedia there is a requirement not to be bias and provide facts otherwise you risk having your post edited or removed by another user. There is no such penalty on social media. Jon-Blackcoat (discuss • contribs) 11:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Data Trails
"How visible are you online? What forms does that visibility take? What kinds of information are available about you online? Who have you chosen to share it with and why? How much of this information is under your control? How do you know? Consider any and all online platforms where you have a presence (e.g. Snapchat, Tumblr, Tinder, Instagram, Reddit, Facebook, gaming networks such as Steam, Google+, LinkdIn and so on). Think about how this theme relates to your Wikibook Project work"

I Think i am pretty visible online however to an extent or perhaps someone needs to look really hard in order to make me visible to them. I think visibility takes different forms, i think visibility means how much information you can get about someone's privet life. Others may argue that visibility mean how often someone post or updates information about themselves. Personally i choose to share my information with family and friends i trust, otherwise i would upload information about myself months after events happen for the public to see. but updated, recent information about me is only visible to people who are close to me.

The amount of information i choose to share is completely up to me however there might be a violation if there is a hacking in which information about me can be visible to the public without my consent. so does this mean that there must be a consent approve to spreed information about someone and make it visible? Well i think so, the only time where there might be a gray area about that topic might be information about celebrities or famous people. because it was their choose to put them selves in the spot light. Well what about their family members? or children for example,they never consented to be put into the spotlight of fame and i think people should respect that and do not share information about the family members or children privet life because that can violate their safety and privacy.

My activity online is very limited, perhaps the only place where i choose to over share is on Snapchat but only a few selected people can view it. As for Instagram my posts are delayed one or two months from when an event takes place and i do not share everything or share pictures of me. other social networks like Facebook or google+ gets used once in a blue moon. as for steam i do not think it counts as a social media platform because for the most part it is strictly for playing games. you can engage with chats but most people on there choose to talk about the games.

How does this relate to the projects on Wikibooks? Well i think that this relates to the project to get us thinking on the information shared about a topic or a person is considered visible. And how it is compared to the other social medias? Well i think that Wikibooks or Wikipedia shares basic information about someone in a very clean and structured way that makes the information quick and easy to read. in some cases it is structured like a biography or a summarize documentary while other social media platforms may be considered as "fan pages" and are less organised then Wikipedia or Wikibooks.

Dalal22 (discuss • contribs) 02:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment on Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Data Trails


Hello Dalal22,

concerning your comment on my discussion page: I understand your thoughts on privacy breach and I as well do never read the whole agreement policy, the small print. Frankly, I do not mind providing my information to the government and companies, because I simply do not have anything to hide. I know it a contentious topic and I have a pretty simple opinion on that. What do you think about it? It sounds like you have much more background knowledge on that topic than I do.

To which extent do you think are you traceable and visible to public?

To answer the exercise questions: Concerning the governments surveillance, I do not believe that I have any control over my information, still, I would not think, that the government would be interested in my private information. And I even somehow appreciate the governmental unextended access to all sorts of (private) information for example in order to observe terroristic acts. The information we produce on Wikipedia and Wikibooks is traceable for everyone, hence everything you do is visible to public. It is an open source, hence transparent.

--DesireeSophie (discuss • contribs) 12:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I also limit who I share things with on my Snapchat, Facebook, and Instagram. All of my social media accounts are and have always been on the private setting. I think that even though privacy settings exist, our information is still saved on the internet and stored in a database. I don't think that it is necessarily a threat, but I also think that it raises this idea or standard that we must be careful about what we post on the internet or even the things that we send directly to people. That's not to say that you or I am doing anything wrong online, but just that I believe that although our accounts are private and are only shared with a select few people, the information is still saved online. Sam ediko (discuss • contribs) 22:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, i completely agree with what you are saying. It is not a threat or wrong it is just that people need to be more careful with what they agree to and how much they are willing to post and share with others. Dalal22 (discuss • contribs) 01:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You make an interesting point about hacking. I do feel that even if you don't make something public, there is still a risk that it may go public if you choose to store it on a social network or in the cloud. An example of this could be the iCloud hacks where many private photos that were never meant to be published were published by hackers. I think there is always a risk of this kind of thing happening if you do not choose to store your data locally and therefore it may be suggested that you are never fully in control of the information you put on the internet, even if it would appear that you are. Jon-Blackcoat (discuss • contribs) 09:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload
Personally i think that there is never too much information however,as there is always more space to advance. I can see that when too much information is given at once people might feel overwhelmed and start to shut off, the attention span of people has decreased. Most media outlets are catering to people with shot attention span and easy distraction by putting a short time limit for videos or limits on the amount of letters someone can write. i deal with information by taking short small breaks to keep myself in focuses. for example while writing an assignment i would have a video of a talk show playing in the back to listen to and get entertained while i am working on something that requires information.

I have came to deal with it in that manner by many trials and errors during my high school years of studying for my finals exams, when i studied i found that when i the more i take breaks or give my brain a chance to cool off in between studies that the information stays in my head much longer. to better explain this thought process, when i am reading an important section in the book while listening to a conversation or watching a video in the background when it comes to recalling that information i read the first thing that comes to mind is the think i was watching or listening and then i remember exactly what i was reading at that moment. if too much information is given at once i start to shut off and would only remember highlights or what i think is important, this means i start to filter threw what i read or hear but that also means that a lot of the information is not sticking in my head. I also found that when i am reading a long paragraph it is much easier to read and understand when it is cut up into smaller sections giving my eyes a place to rest before reading or taking in more information. this might irritate some people however to most this helps them concentrate and gives the illusion that it is a small paragraph and can be read quickly instead of one long paragraph where it feels overwhelming or too much at once. that can be off putting and cause someone to lose interest very quickly

I do not think this effects my workflow on this project negatively, in fact i think that it helps move it in a faster past then if i was to only focus on one thing. Some people might argue that if you where to focus on only one thing and keep your mind set on it then you will get more things done in a much shorter time. However that is not the case with me, if i decide to do it that way then my workflow would be much slower and i would perhaps read or listen threw a whole paragraph and not get any valuable information because my brain is filtering threw it as "unimportant information". Personally i never had any problems with the workflow when i get put into a group, we call seem to understand and work on things together. when i am discussing something face to face, physically or verbally we seem to take short breaks by talking about off topic subjects then snapping back to the main topic. this keeps things interesting and gives you the thought that you want to know more or expand on this topic that you are talking about. Dalal22 (discuss • contribs) 01:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment on Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload
comments on Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload:

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
Personally, I how found communication on Wikibooks really difficult. While working on the project as a group we have found it much easier to talk to each other in person or threw a much faster past replay social media platform such as Facebook. The reason why we all picked Facebook as a source of communication is because we did not have to be so formal all the time, also it was better at giving notifications so it is much faster to get a response there. for example every time we edit something we lest each other know in the Facebook group so everyone is up to date even if they are far away from their laptops they can still have access to Facebook messenger threw their phones.

When it came to face to face discussions i personally think that it made things a lot more clearer on what each of us needed to work on. It was easier understanding the ideas and clarifying some things to each other, it was also much faster to do. And that is how i found face to face communication helped while working on this project.

Personal findings: Some of the concerns from this module:
 * I found it much harder to keep up with engagement, because i want something to be meaningful and not to simply agree with someones words I found it hard to comment on someones words when you do not have anything to add to what someone has to say.
 * I also found it very strange to completely disregard someones thought if you disagree with something they said, feeling rather guilty or rude criticizing someones opinions and having it posted right under what they have posted.
 * Finally i found it complicated to do the coding to make a post look good, it would be much harder to do something as simple as making a sentence in bold or underlined. For example in Word documents, google documents and Notepad they allow you to do the same thing with something as simple as a simple button to do everything.
 * A lot of the questions where really broad and although it gives us there freedom to write on something. It was really hard to figure out if you are straying away from the topic too much or not going into enough detail.
 * Having different topics to work on gave us different playing fields for example, when some students had to research topics that does not allow them to freely speak or voice their opinions such as looking for faces like a number counts, creating charts or searching legal turms and comparing it with students who had to research something that did not require much effort like for example students who had to do theories or definitions.
 * It was great working as a group with the whole class in figuring out coding and applying them in separate groups however, it was hard to find them. the easiest way i have found is to edit their work, find the coding and copy it into your post.
 * Requires a lot more work to be put into it. For example, unlike an assignment where you work really hard on one thing and then post it instead of sending it in separate sections with separate deadlines which makes it a lot harder to work on other modules. i am taking time to work with each exercise and keeping up the engagement where as it is a lot more easier with one assignment with one deadline to help us do each thing on our own time and not rush anything.

It was really nice that the Wikibooks has a feel of a community who are ready to help out new users, having someone proof read and fix any mistakes you might have had makes it that it is hard to put out wrong information. The fact that it is visible makes things easier to track on who edited what and makes someone think twice before posting something. Which is why i am grateful that the "show preview" button is available.

Overall, i have learned so much form the exercises and projects we had to work on. I will defiantly use the information i gained with this projects if i ever think about posting something on Wikibooks or Wikipedia in the future.

Dalal22 (discuss • contribs) 02:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account Comments
Please insert comments here:

Hello! Really enjoyed your post, and liked the neat sectioning you did! Especially enjoyed the concerns as I agreed with a lot of your points. I was wondering is you had any possible improvements in mind with any of these concerns? I was also intrigued by the last entry for your concerns, as I wasn't sure if you felt it was a positive or negative aspect. I'm a very last minute person so I've been striving to slowly build up my other assignments in a similar way to this project, as it is a lot less stressful to do so as well as being the typically recommended way to work. I do however feel that some people do just work better under pressure, and so long as they are achieving equal grades to a gradual build and not causing unnecessary stress to themselves, why must we force them to stray from the way they work best? That being said, this is an incredibly large project. Leaving people their own devices with one deadline might have proven to be very fatal to the majority of students who haven't quite found their pacing rhythm yet when it comes to writing. There are pros and cons to each side, but is your overall opinion that the multiple deadlines should be kept or scrapped? Hope to hear from you soon! LydiaWithTheFringe (discuss • contribs) 23:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello there LydiaWithTheFringe, thank you for your comment! Well, yes i agree as i am one of the people who works better under pressure however, to simply put it and answer your question i believe that it is a good idea to have separate deadlines however i think it is very difficult to keep up with them if they are very frequent. this takes out the focus on other readings or research you need to do for other modules specially if you are the type of person who likes to focus on one thing at a time. For example my working methods is if i start writing something i would like to focus on that alone and not do other studies because i do not want to confuse my mind and get things mixed up. Focusing on one thing at a time makes you more involved and makes your thoughts less scattered however with how frequent the deadlines are it is really hard to split my thoughts on 2 or possible 3 different projects at once therefore my preference would not be the best.

A few suggestions to address the censors i mentioned:
 * Labs should include addressing how to communicate (formally or informal/ what is appropriate and what is not to talk about/ how to properly address someone? is is like talking to a friend on Facebook and use emojis or smiles or is it more formal structure like writing an Email to a boss?).
 * Students should put down all the coding they find in one page or discussion section so it is easier to find.
 * Having more details in the questions and make them less brad.
 * Having having each group tackle something at the same playing field (same structure required).
 * Finding a better way to communicate with the whole class a s a group so the work doesn't look so different or created by so many people (what i am trying to say is finding a platform to talk about it and make the work more cohesive).
 * Having less deadlines or more separated so students can have the opportunities to put in equal effort in all their modules.

I hope this properly answers your questions Dalal22 (discuss • contribs) 21:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I found your post very interesting and very well laid out. I would 100% agree with all of your concerns, especially that of the coding issues as it was extremely difficult to find that information and put it into practice. Your first concern about the vagueness of the question also resonates with me as I found it very hard to work out whether I was writing something relevant or not. JamieKingGinge (discuss • contribs) 16:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The unusual step of including a survey and posting the results here is an extremely useful one. Something that absolutely HAS to be thought through in ALL future work is that if one is conducting a survey (even if for demonstration purposes, as included here) or indeed ANY work with people, one must go through an ethics approval process – this is to ensure no harms (relative or absolute) occur for researchers or participants. This process will become more apparent later in the degree programme, particularly in final year projects. The glossary is really useful – not quite exhaustive, but good for quick reference purposes. Use of interwiki links in here would have been useful. The references section again evidences research, reading and sharing of resources. Some of the formatting seems to go awry towards the end, so a little more joined-up thinking there would have been useful, but overall good.


 * 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


 * Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory entries may try to relate an idea from the module to an original example, but might not be very convincing. They may waste space on synopsis or description, rather than making a point. They may have spelling or grammatical errors and typos. They might not demonstrate more than a single quick pass at the assignment, informed only by lecture and/or cursory reading. They may suggest reading but not thinking (or indeed the reverse). The wiki markup formatting will need some work.


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

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content suggests minimally sufficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Acceptable engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Limited reflexivity and creativity, and a somewhat insecure management of discussion pages