User talk:Dcg00003

I must admit I am a pretty private person. When it comes to online profiles I like to leave as much information offline as possible. As for Facebook, I am pretty much invisible and only use it as a messaging site. Essentially, any information over and above my name, photo and age is oversharing for me. My account is set so only my friends can see my profile. It probably sounds ridiculous but I feel the need to be in constant control of what is displayed on my profile. I don’t even post on my wall and any photos I am tagged in do not appear on my wall unless I approve them. I include information such as where I work and study. One thing I will always refuse to post on Facebook is my relationship status, the idea of some day having to change it from ‘In a Relationship’ back to ‘Single’ should be enough to put anyone off using the status! I just find it an awkward thing to post about, particularly for those whose relationship status is ever-changing! I tend to remain completely inactive on Facebook. You will find more information about me on Instagram. There are many ways you can be visible online and the information you share can vary on each platform. On Instagram I am far more active although I maintain my privacy on there too. On Instagram I follow pages, and post photos. People who have access to my profile are able to see who I spend my time with, what I like to do, what football team I support. Photographs can share information arguably even better than words can. I find that you can tell a lot about a person through the photos they choose to share. I am more comfortable with this means of sharing my own life. However, although in my attempt to control my profiles I am inadvertently revealing more about myself than I intend. As I follow online retailers, I shop and like advertising posts I find that my sharing and my searches result in businesses seeing what I have followed, and can suggest other leads I may be interested in. It also appears that online platforms can use my data or sell it on to other companies. In past years, I have not been fully aware of how these sites can use my information, therefore, I have not realised how visible I am online. After our recent digital media seminar where we discussed how much social media feeds businesses our personal information, I felt compelled to maintain a high level of privacy. The Always-on Culture topic is very much connected to online visibility as we are constantly able to access information about others. The amount of information we can access about someone fluctuates according to their public posts. With all of this in mind, it simply reassures me that my decision to withholding my information online is worthwhile. Dcg00003 (discuss • contribs) 14:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments:
This was a really interesting post to read concerning online visibility, I am someone who has my Facebook on a very private setting for anyone who isn't my friend, however for people that I have approved to be my friend, I allow for posts and photos to be shared and often let most things I am tagged in appear on my profile. It is interesting to see a different outlook that I generally wouldn't have thought about personally. I also enjoy sharing photos on my Instagram page and also have it on private so only people that I want to to see what I post. Privacy I think, is something that varies from person to person and this post highlights that as you have achieved in making me reflect on my own actions. Always On culture was interesting to learn about in our seminar and youve shown how it relates to online visibility depending on how much people are using the internet. Which for me is all the time!

Kgr00003 (discuss • contribs) 18:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography
[Citation] Bunz,M. Meikle, G. (2017) ‘The Internet of Things’, Seeing Things, University of Westminster, Polity Press, pages 54-71.

[Introduction] In this chapter Bunz and Meikle discuss malfunctions in self-driving cars. It also highlights problems with giving ‘things’ human abilities like vision without the same level of responsibility.

[Aims and Research] Through analysing the verbal responses of companies -like Google and Tesla -after accidents in their vehicles, they can argue that the companies always place blame on humans. For example, humans should not take their eyes off the road despite the car driving itself. Also, the quality of machinery is down to humans (engineers) as well.

[Scope] It explains that we should not entrust our entire lives to machinery as despite all developments they do not have the same abilities as humans. Therefore, it highlights issues with society becoming reliant on the Internet of Things.

[Usefulness] As my research entails discussing societies’ dependency on the ‘IoT’ and how we, as consumers, lose control, this chapter allows me to understand a specific aspect of this. As this example is potentially life threatening it is an extreme case that magnifies the possible issues with ‘IoT’.

[Limitations] By only discussing examples of self-driving cars, it therefore limits their argument as there are many more examples of ‘IoT’ taking over our culture.

[Conclusion] Over all, this chapter provides me with a solid understanding of the dangers of relying upon machinery instead of doing things, like driving, for ourselves. However, I will need to use more sources to build more examples and further my understanding of the topic.

Comments: This annotated bibliography is very clear to read and understand, as well as very interesting. This source will be very helpful in discussing the Internet of Things (IoT), both on people's dependencies and issues surrounding IoT technology. While I see the fascination of living in a futuristic world that obtains advanced technology, giving off the illusion of magic and seeming near impossible, I don't quite seem to understand why society is so focused on radically changing our lifestyles so much so that we no longer need do anything for ourselves, such as driving a car. Does this technology reflect society's advanced intelligence or the increasing acceptance of laziness? LaurenCC (discuss • contribs) 19:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I really liked this annotated bibliography and found the easy to navigate format very effective. My group is also studying the Internet of Things (IoT) so I was keen to see what different sources other groups researching this gathered. I was pleased to see your source was Bunz and Meikle as being familiar with their work already from the set readings I know they have some very useful research in relation to the IoT. I will need to check out this section for myself as it sounds like an interesting read particularly when discussing a more negative impact of the IoT. I would be interested to know if you come across any other sources that look at examples beyond self-driving cars as I too encountered this limitation with my own reading. The internet of things is such a vast topic I’m sure there is a plethora of research out there. --Maaark25 (discuss • contribs) 20:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This was a very interesting and easy to read annotated bibliography which has a clear format that made sense. I'm not studying the Internet of Things in my group, however, I still found this intriguing as it's always useful to see different viewpoints and to understand other elements of digital media easier. This illustrates the rapidly developing technological world that we are living in and the way in which it is beginnning to take over our lives - such as using machinery to do our own work for us. I'll be keeping an eye out for your essay in which you'll be exploring this further as it is highly interesting and something I am excited to read more about. Kgr00003 (discuss • contribs) 23:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in this topic! I, personally find it very important to learn about this topic as it is essentially our future. Self driving cars in particular is something that worries me greatly. Just the other day I heard that a girl in Arizona was killed by a self-driving Uber. Although there was still a man behind the wheel, he clearly was not in control of his vehicle. Perhaps if he had been in full control with nothing to fall back on this could have been avoided. I would not feel comfortable getting into a taxi or Uber that was being driven by itself. Putting my life in the hands of a machine that could be hacked or malfunction is not something I could agree to. Once again, it begs the question 'Who is to blame?' the Uber company or the Uber driver that was not paying attention? This grey area has to be addressed. Would you feel comfortable in a world where heavy machinery- such as cars, are in control of their own 'actions'? It is perhaps something we will actually have to face in the near future! Dcg00003 (discuss • contribs) 11:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

This annotation was very interesting to read and has definitely caught my attention. This article sounds like a useful resource for our research project because it will be hugely important to emphasize how dependent we are on new-found technology; thus making the arising issues of security and privacy an issue of urgency. It never occurred to me how companies are so quick to place the blame on their consumers, rather than their own technology. Clearly technology is not advanced enough that we can have total faith on its functionality and reliability, and therefore should avoid becoming totally dependent on the Internet of Things. Cas00103 (discuss • contribs) 00:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

That is a very interesting question! I genuinely think that it is a never ending cycle between wanting our society to improve and us becoming increasingly lazy, and therefore requiring technology to do more for us. It is only right that we should take advantage of all that this advanced technology has to offer us! As I have read further research on the internet of things relating to smart cities, I have learnt that the main intentions of these upgrades is to make society safer and more convenient for our society. However, it is debatable whether or not this is the case! To me, giving up our ability to drive for ourselves is like giving away our freedom! Something that we should be grasping onto as we are already losing our privacy through the IoT. There is a blurred line as we are handing over our safety to machines, without being able to place blame when things go wrong! What are your thoughts on this topic? Also, if you are looking to learn more about how Internet of things will be used in smart cities, an article I found on Google Scholar would be very useful! It is called 'Internet of Things for Smart Cities' in the IEEE, Internet of Things Journal Volume 1. Dcg00003 (discuss • contribs) 22:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC) Dcg00003 (discuss • contribs) 11:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree! Our society's reliance upon the internet of things definitely impacts privacy and security. Putting our trust into technologies that we cannot fully trust yet is something we as a society do not consider enough! It results in paranoia as we are essentially being forced into using these technologies without the companies who supply them helping us to have confidence in their product. It really makes me question how easy it will be in the future when the IoT takes over completely! It is not an issue that we can choose to be involved with. Old technologies are being replaced by new 'things' that consume our attention and information. We are relying on machines that have the possibility to be hacked and this puts both our personal information or our personal safety at risk. When I think about it in this way, it simply doesn't seem worth it! How do you feel about the IoT when you consider these issues? Dcg00003 (discuss • contribs) 22:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely! I’d like to continue from your point about self-driving cars being a threat to our personal safety, especially in this example, as I personally think that this is the bigger issue. Road traffic collisions are ranked as the 9th leading cause of death, and account for 2.2% of all deaths globally. So how safe can it possibly be to replace a fully conscious human being with a nonsentient machine? In this day and age it becomes apparent that people don’t even care about particularly being safe, they want to feel safe. And the idea that a computer system is taking over their autonomy falsely comforts them. Also, commenting on your argument about blame, we live in a culture that is so quick to turn to blame when anything goes wrong. If an autonomous car causes a death, who is at fault? Should we blame the operator of the self-driving car? Or the company who provided the car? The computer system itself? The problem with the latter however is that as humans we want to put other humans at blame. People aren’t comfortable with the idea that they could die in a car crash that was caused by a machine. There has to be more to blame than the machine. Not to mention that so many people would be out of jobs if self-driving cars took over the roads. Driving instructors, delivery drivers, lorry drivers, and the majority of public transport operators would be out of employment. There seems to be so many unanswered questions that it is difficult to imagine a future where self-driving cars would be an advantage to society. Cas00103 (discuss • contribs) 23:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Where to place the blame is a massive issue! Also, the issues with self service checkouts etc. is that jobs are being taken away from us. As you've pointed out, so many jobs will be lost through self-driving cars too. Taking away jobs and taking away responsibility is creating a very lazy society. If this continues, people are not going to be able to think for themselves. Through technology we can search anything we want to know online, spell check everything online, there is little to no need to know anything for yourself. I cannot see this as a benefit in any way if we continue to go down this route! Further questions such as would you still have to pass your driving test to be in the "driver's" seat? Legally, what kind of responsibility do we actually have on our end? There are too many unanswered questions and I do not think that our society or the government can keep up! As technology like this is relatively new as well, we do not know how much this will affect our mental and physical health. These kinds of issues must be addressed as I believe our society is in danger of becoming incapable of doing anything without the assistance of a machine. Dcg00003 (discuss • contribs) 11:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I will definitely let you know if I find any different examples! How have you found the researching process for this topic? I would be interested to know what kind of things you have encountered as much research I have found on this topic has been rather similar. This is the second chapter that I have read about issues with self-driving cars! However, the other did mention other examples too! Perhaps that article would be something you are more interested in. (Greengard,S. 2015, The Reality and Repercussions of a Connected World, ‘The Internet of Things’, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT Press). I found that this article really helped me understand how our society can barely even keep up with it's own progression in this area. It also discusses how it can put us in great danger when we fully trust and embrace this technology! Thinking about the topic in this way, rather than in a positive light is far easier for me as I tend to be on the cautious side when it comes to technology. Would love to know your thoughts on this topic! Dcg00003 (discuss • contribs) 11:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing that book, it definitely helps me with my research around the topic particularly the wider effect of the internet of things (IoT). It was helpful to examine it beyond the automotive industry although its still a great example. I too have found much of the articles I come across to be fairly similar and have found this a challenging aspect of the project so far. However I think that being able to collaborate and share sources by using this wiki format has been very effective in tackling this issue. I know I definitely tend to struggle to explore sources beyond the various reading lists that are provided. That being said, earlier today I stumbled across a news article about an accident involving an Uber self-driving vehicle (https://theconversation.com/whos-to-blame-when-driverless-cars-have-an-accident-93132). I know its the automotive industry again but thought such a recent example might be helpful, an interesting read if nothing else. It discusses who is to blame for the accident and also touches on the use of sensors more widely such as in smart homes. As you said, looking at a negative example like this can be a great way into a topic, I think especially in terms of building a critical analysis. This seems very suited to IoT as while it clearly represents an exciting future theres a significant mix of good and bad. --Maaark25 (discuss • contribs) 20:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I had heard about the Uber accident but am yet to read into it further. I will definitely read this article you have linked. It will be very useful to hear another perspective on the issue of where to place blame. This is something I have been debating with since reading the chapter in my annotated bibliography so this article will help me consolidate a more definite view point. Horror stories about the 'IoT' panic me greatly, it feels as though this is an inevitable progression. Knowing that these accidents are happening already is horrific. If this is because they are relatively new, and still developing then these cars should not be on the streets. However, I feel that no matter how much they improve, these accidents will always be right around the corner. Of course, there are dangers with everything in life, but putting human lives in the hands of machinery is-in my opinion- too big a risk to take. What do you think about this? Would you feel safe crossing a road and not knowing if the person behind the wheel of the car approaching is in control or if the car is driving itself? This is something that I am sure most of society is worried about, particularly after this incident in America! Dcg00003 (discuss • contribs) 12:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it's certainly a very complicated issue and it's tricky to strike the right balance. While losing human control is a frightening prospect that seems more appropriate in a sci-fi film, it is equally clear that these innovations represent the future. I suspect that in the past many will have had a similar sense of trepidation about much of the technology we now use everyday. Its hard to compare examples though as each new development is so different and we can't know for certain what the future will hold. For example we don't yet have any definitive research on the effect of our generations engagement with smart phones and increased screen time as the technology hasn't been around long enough. Instead we have to make do with hypothetical research based on current evidence. In regards to self-driving cars specifically, I definitely agree with you. It seems extremely risky and its hard to fathom a scenario where I would feel totally safe. Although that being said I suppose technology like traffic lights are largely autonomous and are trusted to keep us safe on a daily basis. Ultimately as you said there is always going to be danger and risks out there. I think one aspect I would especially struggle to ignore however is the threat of hacking. Peoples phones and computers are compromised every day and that can be devastating enough but imagine someone taking over your car on the road. This possibility isn't even hard to imagine when you see news stories about how easily keyless entry is being exploited (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/12/cars-risk-keyless-entry-system-hacked-volkswagen). How is your research coming along? My group are yet to decide a question so I haven't been able to get very specific research as yet but I am guessing a lot of discussion around the internet of things will bring up similar concerns to those plaguing the automotive industry. --Maaark25 (discuss • contribs) 18:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

This example of hacking keyless entry cars is very helpful and really puts things in perspective. If this is able to be done, then why wouldn't malicious acts like hacking someone's driving happen? Particularly acts of terrorism could be at risk of increasing through hacking like this. I do agree that there are risks with all technological developments, yet we continue to use them daily. However, I do believe the greater the developments, the greater the risks that comes along with it. The hacking of cars does seem rather out there and something you would only see in movies, but this could be the harsh reality of the 'IoT' in the future. My research on the general 'IoT' is going rather well and I am gradually building up my knowledge and notes. Our group have decided to focus on the risks of 'IoT' but are keeping our options open on what we discuss depending on how easily we can find different topics with enough scope. There is much discussion focussed on this issue and I imagine it will continue to be a central issue for the foreseeable future. I'm sure your group will find a fitting question as there are so many areas of this topic that are open for discussion! Dcg00003 (discuss • contribs) 20:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

hey! How's things coming along with your collab essay? Hope you've managed to work your way around Wiki, it's quite a difficult platform to use! Your pieces on this page are interesting reads and I'm finding it interesting to read comments that have been left on everyones pages in order to understand different views and perspectives on these topics! Have you found the same? Kgr00003 (discuss • contribs) 14:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you! Yes I have really valued other people's opinions of this problem and tried to keep all this in mind with my research and writing! I have found that much of the opinions are similar but to varying extents and finding more in depth perspectives on different sections has been helpful. I must admit this project has been a bit of a challenge but is getting easier the more I use the platform and have to say it is very worthwhile! Dcg00003 (discuss • contribs) 15:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes I totally agree with you, it's definitely been an interesting assignment to say the least! Will be glad once it's all over! Kgr00003 (discuss • contribs) 09:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Collaborative Essay Reflective Account
Wikibooks is an online information platform where a community is created to inform it’s users. It emphasises online visibility as it makes you aware that you are writing to an audience. It is not only accessible to other students, but the general public. Readers may not know much about the concepts discussed. It is important to keep this in mind and try to strike a balance so that content is not full of over describing but not too brief either. Seeing that people are able to edit the work that I do helps me to understand the extent of the visibility. This certainly helped with Collaborative research as I was not only able to see what my group was posting about, but could also see what other groups were using to facilitate their research. Finding sources at times can be particularly challenging. Having the ability to see other people’s annotated bibliographies was extremely useful. At times, I struggled to narrow down my research topic, or find one that there was enough scope on. At these times I found it useful to post about this on our group discussion page. This way, others could know that they are not the only ones encountering challenges and seeking advice. It was also helpful to notice other people’s research topics changing. As there was no set question, it was necessary for all members to feel they had a relevant topic. It fosters a community as people who are interested in a certain topic can all contribute to one piece of work. Being able to communicate through this medium is beneficial. It represents a digital commons as it involves creating information that belongs to no one person. It combines a community’s intelligence to create a well rounded feed of information. It not only connects to our collaborative research group, but also to the whole online community. I believe that Wikibooks offers online freedom as you do not need to be an expert in what you are discussing. It is a way you can inform others while becoming informed. However, I realised there were many restrictions to this process too. As people can edit your work, they can take away the over all message of what you are trying to convey. I have also come to realise that it is easy for someone to take your work away. There are also limitations as anything that is not approved by Wikipedia can be removed. A|though this is the case for all social platforms, it does remove a sense of freedom from the whole process. The notifications you receive when someone updates or chats on your page reminds me very much of danah boyd’s Always On Culture. As you are one click away from the community, there is always an opportunity to learn or contribute. It is like a social media account in some ways are you are able to personalise your profile. It is also clearly linked to Cognitive Surplus, as it is an online community that collaborates to inform. This is not in exchange for money. It is simply for the satisfaction of building something, a platform that is freely accessible to all. I find that it was necessary to meet up in person with my collaborative group in order to start off this process. In order to assign roles and come up with an essay question. Once we had set our targets, I found it was easy to keep one another updated on the site, however, it took time to get used to the group discussion page and take advantage of all it has to offer. Over all, I believe this process was extremely worthwhile. It demonstrated some of the concepts that we had been studying in class. It also highlighted the vitality of group contribution, as well as the gradual process of informing and communicating. Not everything should be instant despite this culture expecting so.

Sources: boyd, d. (2012) ‘Participating in the Always On Culture’, NYU Press, New York. Shirky, C. (2010) ‘Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age’, Penguin Press, London.

Dcg00003 (discuss • contribs) 19:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

This is a very well written and thought out reflective account. I completely agree that Wikibooks emphasises online visibility. It is weird to think that both our own pages and collaborative essay discussion page are not private and can be accessed by anyone who comes across it. I too found this to be very useful when it came to our collaborative essay. Being able to see each others' work as well as guiding and helping one another through the discussion page was a very useful tool. I did, however, find that it could be a little intimidating as you weren't able to post anything unformally or have a "casual chat" so to say. Everything said had to have some significance and had to well think out before typed and published. I found myself constantly comparing our work to others and became very aware that some people knew how to use Wikibooks in terms of editing, much better than myself. On the other hand, I guess this is good for ensuring that the group was writing valuable and knowledgable content as well as pushing us to try and make our discussion page as professional as possible. I also agree with your point of Wikibooks fostering a community. The fact that we could interact with one another and other groups, both commenting and helping on each others work was something that might not have been possible if we were to do our collaborative essay in our own time, on Microsoft Word and in private. Wikibooks definitely gives you the freedom to put your thoughts into words and being able to publish them on Wikibooks is a great way to share ideas amongst like-minded individuals who can both build on your ideas, tell you their own or even help you get something right. It is unfortunate that people can put a lot of time and effort into their work for someone else to remove it or change it (in some cases) and agree that this can be problematic. Linking Wikibooks to Dana Boyd's "Always-On Culture" and Cognitive Surplus is a fascinating approach. While Wikibooks is not a social networking site, it does share certain aspects of one such as getting notifications, seeing comments and being able to interact with different individuals. Overall, I agree with all of your points. I also believe that using Wikibooks to discuss and write a collaborative essay is a great example of media convergence in the sense that we didn't just need to do our project on Microsoft Word. It eliminates the need to meet up (even though the group did a few times), socialisng through other forms of social media, being given access to a lot of different information and knowledge all in the one place as well as being able to get access to other media forms using Wiki Commons. This is a great example of Mary Chayok's superconnected theory and Pierre Levy's idea of Collective Intelligence (as well all came together, with different ideas and topics to create one big essay). I enjoyed using this platform to interact with the group members and found it extremely useful, though at times it was very challenging to navigate the technology, specifically editing. LaurenCC (discuss • contribs) 21:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: DISCUSSION, ENGAGEMENT, CONTRIBS

 * Engagement on discussion pages of this standard attain the following grade descriptor for contribs. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this will give you a clearer idea of how the grade you have been given relates to the standards and quality expected of work at this level:
 * Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory contributions 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) and will have little justification for ideas offered on Discussion Pages. The wiki markup formatting will need some work.

Students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.


 * This was clearly not the case here – only 6 days registered as having logged a contrib. One or two of the largest contribs were largely made up of draft work for the essay page, and I’ve discounted these as I can’t assess you for the same work twice. However, here are several smaller contribs that suggest that, when you did engage, these seemed to be significant entries in terms of moving the project forward, and really made a positive difference. Had you engaged in a more sustained manner from start to finish on the project, this would certainly have had very positive impacts on the project as a whole.

Evidence from contribs to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of editorial activity as evidenced through ‘contribs’). These are primarily considered for quality rather than quantity, but as a broad guideline: o	Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial” o	Items on a contribs list that are <1000 characters are important, and are considered in the round when evaluating contribs as a whole because of their aggregate value


 * Several contribs registered as being under 1000 characters, with only three classed “substantial”. In the vast majority of cases, these were discursive and meaningful, and added positively to the group work.

•	Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages o	Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration o	Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay o	Evidence of peer-review of others’ work


 * Although possibly the weakest element of your contribution, there is some evidence to suggest that you pushed your arguments and encouraged others to comment/respond. You engaged with others’ work useful on occasion.

•	Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages o	Clear delegation of tasks o	Clearly labelled sections and subsections o	Contributions are all signed


 * There was a little organisation of the discussion page on your part.

•	Civility. Your conduct is a key component of any collaboration, especially in the context of an online knowledge-building community. Please respect others, as well as observe the rules for civility on wiki projects. All contribs are moderated.


 * You conducted yourself well, as far as the evidence suggests.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
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 the making criteria as outlined in the relevant documentation, it should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band overall:


 * Good. Among other things, good entries will make a clear point in a clear way. They will relate concepts to original examples in a straightforward fashion. They will make effective use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons). They may also demonstrate a broader understanding of the module's themes and concerns, and are likely to show evidence of reading and thinking about the subject material. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.


 * You show a lot of potential in terms of the way you read and apply what you learn to a specific context, so there’s clearly room for improvement here to achieve the higher marks. 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. In particular, you seem to have missed the very last item in the portfolio, where you are asked to respond to someone else’s reflective account (therefore the work overall falls just short).


 * In addition, making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would have made a considerable difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are quite good, if at times 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.

General:
 * Reading and research: there is some evidence of critical engagement with set materials, as well as a little evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material


 * Argument and analysis: some good work here, were you have submitted well-articulated and well-supported argument and evidence of critical thinking. I would have liked to have seen more evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections).


 * Presentation: see above comment on use of wiki markup and organisational skills.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)