User talk:DesFreestone

Hi, since we are both doing parts of digital labour drawbacks we should discuss how to distribute our work between ourselves. You can get me on Facebook (Jacob Rawley) or we can organise a time for the drawbacks people to meet (I have already suggested a time on the discussion page). hope to here from you soon, LateRawley (discuss • contribs) 17:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 3: Annotated Bibliography entry part B
Graham, M., Hjorth, I., & Lehdonvirta, V. (2017). Digital labour and development: Impacts of global digital labour platforms and the gig economy on worker livelihoods. Sage Journals, 23(2), 135-162.

This research describes the relationship between the digital labour market and its global accessibility, and explores structural issues that arise for individuals aiming to benefit from labour beyond their local labour market. The research project is based on qualitative data and findings from project publications in sub-Saharan Africa and South East Asia. The article describes four major concerns that arise for digital workers in these geographical regions: bargaining power, economic exclusion, intermediation and skill development. This article is useful to my research, fore it provides an understanding of the distinct geographies within a global market. In addition, it provides useful strategies to improve the structural issues currently present. This research is helpful in understanding the drawbacks that arise from the digital labour economy from a non-western perspective. DesFreestone (discuss • contribs) 11:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: ENGAGEMENT ON DISCUSSION PAGES & CONTRIBS
Grade descriptors for Engagement: Engagement on discussion pages, and contribs of this standard attain the following grade descriptor. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this descriptor 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:
 * Very Poor. Often, contributions of this standard are quite brief, are structured poorly and are not spell-checked. They are often irrelevant, and offer little engagement with the concerns of the module or the assignment brief. Contributions of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be of a very poor standard and as a result it will be difficult for the reader or fellow collaborators to engage with the discussion.

As instructed in the labs, and outlined in the assessment brief documentation, students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.

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:
 * Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable”
 * Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant”
 * Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial”
 * 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

Overall:
 * apart from one or two contribs right at the end of the project period, the evidence for discussion and engagement here is insubstantial

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

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * Clear delegation of tasks
 * Little or none in evidence
 * Clearly labelled sections and subsections
 * Little or none in evidence
 * Contributions are all signed
 * Satisfactory

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.
 * Poor

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly correspond 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:


 * Very Poor. Often, entries of this standard are quite brief, are structured poorly and are not spell-checked. They are often irrelevant, and offer little engagement with the concerns of the module or the assignment brief. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be of a very poor standard and as a result it will be difficult for the reader to engage with the discussion.


 * Much of the required conent seems to be missing. This is a shame, as what content has been submitted is of fairly good quality.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)