User talk:Dcunningham1017

I am participating in Wikibooks as part of a class project in Digital Media. I'm very excited to engage with and contribute to the community! Dcunningham1017 (discuss • contribs) 14:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: What makes a good Wiki?
Both academic and social web platforms like Wikibooks and Facebook allow many users to come together and express their ideas, as well as explore the ideas of others. However the ideas being shared, and the way in which users identify, differ vastly between these platforms.

Social media platforms like Facebook have much friendlier user interfaces, due perhaps to their more informal and widespread use. Platforms like Wikibooks have arguably more complicated interfaces, although they are more suited to the discussion and development of academic ideas. Wikibooks also encourages collaboration among users with the similar expertise in a certain field. These interactions are often more formal, and may seem more discouraging to average users with experience in social media, looking to contribute information to sites like Wikibooks. Facebook, and other social platforms are more suited to expressing personal opinions among friend groups, and are not primarily designed to share academic ideas. Social media platforms also focus more on the user themselves, and less on the contribution they have to offer. Social media is all about representing yourself, and engaging with friends, rather than contributing knowledge to a subject and engaging with strangers. However, both types of platforms excel in the sharing and development of ideas.

In my experience, participating in an online community allows you to engage with other like minded individuals, with many web platforms like Reddit and Twitter allowing the user to filter for specific sub communities who share similar ideas. These environments are more laid back in a sense than wikipedia and its sister sites, as they are for sharing opinions, rather than focusing on facts. I have no experience in participating with websites like wikipedia, (outside of this module) although I have personally been discouraged, due to the odd customs and user interface involved, and perhaps as well due to my lack of academic knowledge in the subjects. After all, my experience with wikipedia thus far has been to learn, rather than to share my own knowledge on a given subject.

Dcunningham1017 (discuss • contribs) 00:50, 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.


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


 * This post is at the lower end of this grade band, so there’s clearly room for improvement here. 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, you have started the journey of reflecting upon the platform, and that is to be encouraged. The idea behind this exercise isn't to try and convert you to WP - in fact, if you are equipped to challenge some of the notions embedded in the platform, in many ways this is more productive, because you are able to build an argument around the relative merits and issues of online collaboration. A good start. Additionally, 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 to future edits.


 * 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. I like that you are beginning to discuss in an open and critical way (that is to say, you've responded to what other people are saying and are contributing meaningfully to discussion - arguably the civic element of wiki that you ought to be thinking about, which you clearly are).

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello David, I'm very interested in your point about general social media being aimed towards sharing personal opinions as opposed to contributing to a collective knowledge. I've personally found the saying "everyone is an expert in the comments section" to be true, as I have encountered countless videos on sites like Facebook where suddenly every one knows exactly what the body language of a dog equals or how to perfectly raise a child. Behind a screen with no one to fact check your qualifications, any platform can be used to express knowledge that may not necessarily true. I wonder if you would agree that this could be extended to Wiki*edia? From what I've already seen, Wiki*edia has far greater measures to prevent the spreading of false information than simpler social media, but I am interested on hearing your opinions on the topic too. Thanks! LydiaWithTheFringe (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lydia! Thanks for your response! I absolutely agree that false facts could slip into Wikipedia, especially with more 'obscure' articles that perhaps aren't viewed and therefor edited as frequently. However, as you mentioned, the Wiki sites seem to have more stringent fact checking, and the collaboration between users may help further remedy this. I also agree with the view of "everyone's and expert", and I wonder if the collaborative nature of wikipedia weeds out the false facts, or exacerbates the issue. Very interesting insight to add in regards to how users act. Thanks a lot!

Dcunningham1017 (discuss • contribs) 19:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 2#: Visibility And Data Trails
My visibility online seems hard to measure. On one hand, there is the obvious: Social media accounts directly linked to me. But then there is the visibility of more anonymous accounts, that while they can’t necessarily be traced back to me, still represent my actions online. Further still, what information has been accumulated on me based on technology like tracking cookies, and been made visible to other people, in this case the commercial sector?

A distinction must be made between visibility and lack of privacy. An anonymous account for example may be full of activity, however should someone search said account for information on the user, (provided they have kept their contact and personal details anonymous), then that users identity is safe. So, although their actions are visible, the users privacy in a sense is kept intact.

The rise of Social Media however has also led to a rise in people becoming actively involved personally, representing themselves rather than an anonymous, online username. People’s actions online can now be easily attributed to them, with details on where person grew up, lives and works now easily accessible. Privacy has become less common, but visibility hasn’t really changed?

I have some accounts on platforms such as Steam and Reddit, however unlike social media these accounts are kept anonymous and separated, so have somewhat ‘more’ privacy. I am involved very little in social media, having always chose other methods of communication, (Text Group-chats for example), and was therefor unable to find much public information, although there is no way to search how much information third party websites and business’s have logged on my internet browsing and shopping habits.

This highlights the difference between who I choose to share my information with, and who it IS shared with. Recently in one of my other modules (Marketing and Ethics), we learned about Facebook connect: a program run by Facebook in which many users details were shared with third party companies without the users consent. Users WERE given the option to sign up, however, friends of these users information could be accessed by these companies regardless of whether they themselves had consented.

Although a users accounts may be set to private, this seems to achieve little other than too almost give false security, as all of their personal data was made available to many third party websites and their search history tracked by cookies.

Wikibooks is unique, in that, despite it being highly visible, none of the information on users is used commercially (as far as I’m aware…). In fact, Wikibooks works partly by having such easy to follow data trails, necessary to check the flow of information and insure sources are real.

Wiki Excercise 2# Comments
Dcunningham, this was a n enjoyable read. I agree with your points throughout, especially regarding your comments made about visibility and privacy. Also, I can relate to the marketing module mentioned. The Facebook connect saga was something that not many users were aware of obviously but don't you think that this is something we maybe need to get used to? In our current digital age we have to realise that posseing any sort of online presence is leaving us vulnerable to these stunts. Lewislbonar (discuss • contribs) 21:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Dcunningham1017 (discuss • contribs) 13:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

! In regards to Facebook Connect and similar programs, I think the companies behind them need to take responsibility and respect their users rights. However, I also agree that this is something we should get used too, as these companies are unlikely to make any changes to these systems as long as they turn a profit. I definitely agree however that merely having a presence online makes us vulnerable to tracking, and I feel as though that is something that has become a given with online accounts. Thanks for your comments!! Dcunningham1017 (discuss • contribs) 08:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I definitely agree with what you’ve said about the visibility and lack of privacy online. I wanted to comment on what you mentioned about the anonymous accounts, that while people can’t necessarily be traced back but still represent your actions online. I believe anonymity is horrible, because people can do anything they want to do and say what they want to say in the network world, sometimes it can even hurt others but people do not have take the responsibility for their actions. Also, it is difficult to find the root cause to control or restrain those people.

Besides, your experience of Marketing and Ethics modules is very interesting, because it proves hidden danger of the social network security that we might leak our personal information through different channels imperceptibly. Do you think that the visibility of Wikipedia is causing completely no threat to people? Compare with Wikipedia relative to other social media platforms, and we can see that Wikipedia provides very little personal information. What is the influence of the interaction between this?

Shekkkkk (discuss • contribs) 22:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

! Your insight into anonymity is very interesting, and I agree that it does remove the user form any accountability that they have from their actions. However, I believe anonymity also has its benefits. People have the opportunity to be more honest, and speak freely about subjects that may be controversial, which would otherwise be taboo if linked to them personally. However, as you said this also presents an opportunity for cyberbullying and trolling, and that is something that is difficult to rectify when the users are anonymous. I also think that anonymity is perhaps one of the appeals of engaging with others on the internet, with may websites allowing communication between anonymous users.

As far as Wikipedia/Wikibooks, I believe these websites are benign, as all of the data trails are public. If third parties were for whatever reason collecting tracking data imperceptibly from Wikibooks, I don't think it would be very useful to them. As you mentioned, there is very little personal information to begin with, and Wikibooks is about educating and contributing, rather than say online shopping and advertising. Social media platforms however are focused on self representation, and therefor provide a bigger opportunity for companies to mine data and exploit users interests. Thanks a lot for commenting! Dcunningham1017 (discuss • contribs) 09:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 3#: Information Overload
Browsing the internet is seldom a quick task. With the wealth of information available, it is too easy to get sidetracked or distracted. Many websites compound this issue by advertising similar articles or webpages, which can lead hours of browsing articles on a tangent.

Time is definitely the biggest contributing factor to keeping up with ‘information overload’. Trying to stay up to date with the internet is incredibly time consuming, and a lot of the information people are interested in, if often irrelevant to their daily life, so could be seen as somewhat unproductive to keep up with. The fear of missing out is another contributing factor. People don’t like to feel as though they’ve missed out on something rewarding, so that often drives them to keep up to date. '

As far as coping with all of the information, I use websites like Zergnet or apps like ‘News’ on my phone to read the most recent headlines all in one place. Although these platforms both have an abundance of websites and articles available, they also provide quick summary’s which allows me to keep up to date without wasting too much time.

As far as the wiki book project, trying to find relevant and helpful sources is generally quite a frustrating and time consuming task, due to the sheer amount of results that search engines provide. The subject guides on the online library alleviate this somewhat, but even they are often so extensive, that finding relevant sources can be difficult. Thankfully, due to the Wikibooks collaborative nature, when relevant sources are found they can be shared amongst the group, allowing faster research as a whole, and also a wider selection of sources, that one person may have struggled to find all on their own.

Dcunningham1017 (discuss • contribs) 11:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Excercise 3# Comments
Hi Dcunningham1017, I enjoyed reading your post but can I ask what Zegernet is? Without my googling it of course. I like to think I am up to date with the latest apps but I suppose in our current digital age there is no real way of keeping on top of the new software developments. Lewislbonar (discuss • contribs) 21:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Lewislbonar, thanks for your comment! Zergnet is a website that is essentially made up of articles from hundreds of different particiating websites. It allows you to quickly view multiple headlines form entertainment and news sites, and follow links to the full articles. I'll link it here in case you are interested. Sorry about the confusion, I should have explained it better! Dcunningham1017 (discuss • contribs) 22:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * (http://www.zergnet.com)


 * Thanks User:Dcunningham1017 for your response, don't be sorry I was just curious and of course just looking for some worthwhile wiki engagement points, as we all are. Lewislbonar (discuss • contribs) 23:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I was wondering about your use of websites like Zergnet - do you ever find that you're missing out on information or different viewpoints on topics? I only ask because I used Flipboard for a while, which sounds quite similar, and found this to be a problem for me. Although I don't know if this is just me having "fomo" on all the information that is possible to access. Helizacarr (discuss • contribs) 11:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Helizacarr!!, thanks for your comment! I hadn't really considered different viewpoints when catching up on the latest news. I guess a lot of the content could be biased, especially if the website is partnered with an uneven balance of news sites. You've given me a lot to think about in terms of how biased the articles are. Dcunningham1017 (discuss • contribs) 14:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 4#: Wikibooks Project Reflective Account
For the past month as part of my module on Digital Media, I have participated on the Wikibooks platform. This is my first experience with Wikibooks, or any Wikimedia website for that matter, and I have found the module very insightful.

I found the collaborative nature interesting. Not ‘owning’ any of the content per se, and being able to edit anyone’s work is still an odd concept to me, however I definitely can see the benefits it has had on the website. Wikibooks, and Wikipedia are often discredited, and have a reputation of being unreliable because anyone can edit them. However, contributing on this project has shown me it is incredibly reliable, thanks to the thorough steps the articles go through, whether its on the discussion pages, or having the pages reviewed whenever a change is made.

When it came to joining groups, I found it difficult as I didn’t know anyone in the class beforehand. However, participating with people you don’t know is the basis of Wikibooks. Once we met up in person, I felt more confident about the project. I found the face-to-face discussions with the group a lot easier, as feedback for one another was faster. However, much of what we discussed was later uploaded to the discussion page, allowing the other members of our group to view what we had discussed and contribute.

As for the the actual editing suite, I think Wikibooks is a little outdated, and the Wikibooks markup language also has a steep learning curve. Although being able to bounce ideas off of each other helped during the final project, the actual layout of the pages can be confusing. Due to us being new users, and Wikibooks leaving the layout options up to the users, trying to format and discuss on the reading pages was somewhat difficult. However, once we got to grips with the Markup language, the page we were creating took shape, and discussing the formatting as a group helped keep the look of the page consistent and professional.

I found contributing in the project mirrored what our project was about: Digital labour, specifically ‘Always On Culture’. Members of the group were contributing to our age throughout the day, even when some of us were offline, and this is true of the Wikibooks platform as a whole. We were connected through the discussion page however, and were alerted when our usernames were mentioned. With people from around the world with expertise in different fields contributing 24/7, Wikibooks is a prime example today of Always On Culture.

Overall, I found this project incredibly interesting. Before now, I had taken wikipedia articles for granted, and never considered the time nor effort that goes into creating, and updating them. I don’t know if I would continue to contribute Dcunningham1017 (discuss • contribs) 11:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Excercise 4# Comments

 * Hi User: Dcunningham1017, I agree that Wiki*edia as a whole is generally more reliable than what it is given credit for (particularly if you proof check the information presented). Or one can at least use Wiki as a place to find resources for further research I feel. The group work aspect of this task was quite difficult at times and I understand how people being anonymous could be intimidating as well. The Wiki*edia layout as a whole does seem a bit outdated, I agree, and it can be quite hard to loose track of whats going on as more and more people join into discussions. Then again, at least this means more work gets done and redrafted quicker as more people fill in.

--Campbell Wallace (discuss • contribs) 23:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your comment! I agree that Wikipedia is more reliable. And although is is somewhat taboo to reference it, I have found the sources provided in the articles to be of use before. I definitely have anew found appreciation for the work that goes into these articles.


 * As far as the layouts concerned, I think it could benefit from an update. I think the discussion pages would benefit from being formatted more like threads in forums, rather than using the same markup language as the editor. Another feature I just realised was missing was some form of spellcheck.


 * All of my gripes could be down to being a new user however. The official articles seem to be created and maintained very efficiently. Dcunningham1017 (discuss • contribs) 00:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The glossary is really useful – not quite exhaustive, but good for quick reference purposes. Use of interwiki links in here would have been useful. The references section again evidences research, reading and sharing of resources.


 * Good. Your contribution to the book page gives a good brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a good 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 a good 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%)

 * No evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * No engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Little or no use of discussion pages