User talk:DesireeSophie

Hi my name is DesireeSophie. I am part of an educational project, in which we try to learn and engage with Wikibooks. Instead of only consuming content I am excited to explore how it is producing some. --DesireeSophie (discuss • contribs) 18:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikiexercise #1 What makes a good Wiki?
I believe that People -especially young people- consume media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram more frequently than they use Wikipedia. Because social media has a different purpose than Wikipedia. Social Media serves the purpose of connecting and interacting with people, sharing mutual ideas and collaborating on a personal (individual) level, not to create a collaborate output. When I log into my Facebook account, my cover page is always full of new content, not only adverts but mostly user generated content, which my (facebook) friends produced. People share their ideas, lifestyles and try to interact with the other users. It is mostly something personal and subjective without high quality or added value for the public. That’s why it is not produced for the public but only the other facebook users, it stays in the “facebook surrounding”. Still, a lot of people engage with it and comment on it, because they share the same interests or on the contrary oppose the posted content. Everyone, who has a facebook account can publish something with one mouse click and contents can become viral.


 * One of my daughters uses Facebook as a platform for organising face to face social events and that is her main platform for doing so. My younger daughter does have a Facebook account but rarely uses it and is more a fan of Snapchat and Instagram, where she is a member of a variety of groups who chat away without ever actually organising to meet up in person.  For her, the platform itself is the communication, whereas for the older daughter, the platform is merely a means of organisation, somewhat like an online diary.Vickthestick (discuss • contribs) 12:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Whereas Wikipedia tries to use the collaboration of all different users to produce content, which is meant for public (access). The content produced by Wikipedia users is edited and double checked before it is published. Hence, it is much more reliable and qualitative than the content posted by individuals on social media platforms. Moreover, the whole system of Wikipedia is designed to share, discuss and edit information, which is supposed to have value, validity and evidence as a collaborative outcome (e.g. the function to quote).


 * I've not really used Wikipedia as a means of creation before, just as a consumer, so this aspect of collaborative creation seems a little daunting! Vickthestick (discuss • contribs) 12:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

--DesireeSophie (discuss • contribs) 22:27, 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.


 * 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, making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would go a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, as you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this will make a considerable difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are quite good. I like that you have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!) and also that you have engaged in discussion 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). Perhaps a little more engagement with the module reading and themes might help to draw out and extend your arguments for project work. Keep this up!

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 10:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi DesireeSophie,

I completely agree that young people use platforms such as facebook, twitter and Instagram much more regularly than they would Wikipedia, It is an entirely different form of communication that is easily accessible for quick conversation and personal updates where wikipedia is not. I find it very interesting that you mentioned advertisements on sites such as facbook, I was wondering what your personal opinion was on them and if you think it affects how young people including yourself shop? Do you fall victim to clothing ads? I know I do. BethIrish (discuss • contribs) 20:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I too have not used Wikipedia as a means of online collaboration. I prefer to use other forms of social media as I find it to be more convenient. I think that Wikipedia's content is a little more complicated and geared towards a certain audience than other forms of social media are. For things like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat, the communcation aspect is very quick and the information found on those sights is a litte more personal. I feel that Wikipedia can be used for more general knowledge and our social media sites are more for our own personal enjoyment. Sam ediko (discuss • contribs) 21:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2 : Visibility and Data Trails
The search engine Google is the most used search engine to access information online in the Western countries and currently holds around 80% of the global market share according to the Netmarketshare website Therefore, I searched myself (full name) via Google.

Google comes up with my XING profile and some of my articles written for my home University via Maerkzettel, which is not too bad after all, because that is how I supposed it to be.


 * XING website is a business oriented social networking site, which I use to connect to other journalists, people I work with on business level and to built a network My profile presents me in a serious persona, shows my CV and working experiences. Some information are accessible to the public like my profile pictures and the latest bullet points on my CV, only members can see all of it. As an ongoing journalist I need to have a proper public appearance and to be found. The profile already helped me to get several internships as I could refer to it.


 * Maerkzettel is my home university´s online newspaper. Google makes me visible as some of the articles` author. There are no other information available.


 * Facebook: You actually cannot find my profile unless you are a member of the social network. Here I present myself very freely, at least the bright side of my idendity. All of my profile information is only visible to my friends, I like to share it with them, because that what it is for in my opinion. If I would not share it in a “bigger” sense, I would not need to create any content at all.


 * Instagram: I have a public profile. Public for all members. They can see the pictures I upload, mostly travel pictures, see the places I have been to (because I use certain hashtags and also the location), hence, follow my journey.


 * Twitter: I have an account, but no information available and only use it passively. I just use it to look for other people.


 * Google+/Yahoo!: no information available/visible apart from my username, had to create a profile for my E-Mail account.

I am aware of the fact, that every online platform I am present on, stores all my information and collects big data (which can be seen in the generated adverts shown on your profile). And none of the information I put online is under my control anymore. I am not afraid of online surveillance or the protection of my data being abused on the single platforms themselves. I rather fear my data from different platform being transferred and connected, this way it would be almost too easy to create an invisible human, because I use every platform and its networking effects differently. Together it would create a big overall picture.

That is why I do not like the acquisition of Facebook and Instagram. How do you see the matter of surveillance? Do you feel save and have your data under control or rather controlled?

--DesireeSophie (discuss • contribs) 22:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #2 : Visibility and Data Trails
Feel free to comment on my Wikibook! I appreciate every opinion and question to think about and enhance my understanding.

--DesireeSophie (discuss • contribs) 19:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment about Wiki Exercise #2 : Visibility and Data Trails

Hello ,

I think it is very interesting to consider the point of view of a journalist. It is not always bad or negative to leave data tails behind. Some people want to be found, because they have something to say.

''Do you think you have to save your information on your Facebook profile because they could influence your work as a journalist?  - Or are the information only visible for your friends because you present yourself there very freely?''

Not only the acquisition of Facebook and Instagram makes me aware. Also the acquisition of Facebook and WhatsApp. One day I worked for a company as hostess. So I saved the number of my direct contact into my smartphone. We communicated via WhatsApp. I do not know how much time left but when I looked to my Facebook profile I was shown the profile of exactly this contact, although we had on Facebook no common friends. Facebook asked me if i know this contact and if i want to send him a friendship request. I guess this is about because WhatsApp and Facebook share some data, especially the phone number. I am concerned that companies are collecting and sharing my data. Like you say, the are creating a big overall picture.

Melissa0908 (discuss • contribs) 21:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

, in regards to visibility on Instagram for example you mentioned that public profiles are visible however, does bring up some very interesting points for example "It is not always bad or negative to leave data tails behind. Some people want to be found" i personally agree with this point completely however i question how much control does someone have with sharing information. "I am concerned that companies are collecting and sharing my data" to an extent your information is visible whether is it privet or public server providers which can be threatened if someone hacks the servers and chooses to makes all your personal information that you have hidden on there can be put on public display. this is a privacy breach but this can help people think about how much are they actually sharing without their knowledge. or perhaps it can be stated on the agreement policy however people choose to agree and consent to things without reading anything. this can be a problem because it gives approval sometimes to companies to do whatever they please with your information. another very controversial topic which is government viewing and that people in the government have access to all information you choose to provide even if you choose to tick a box that states that your information is now hidden from the public.

my argument is that to an extent you are traceable and visible. So in regards to the exercise question, how much control do you have over the information that you send out? and comparing it with with information shared on Wikipedia or Wikibooks how does visibility take place here?

Dalal22 (discuss • contribs) 00:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I was interested to hear your views on privacy online and the control we have of our own data. As Facebook clearly mentions in their terms and conditions, once you have uploaded information it becomes immediately outwith your control. It would seem that Astra Taylor is correct when she says that the 'dominant business of the Internet is surveillance'. Vickthestick (discuss • contribs) 08:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that you raise some interesting points in your response. I like that you are more concerned about the idea of social media platforms being connected and that is data being intertwined with one another. I also like this idea of an "invisble person" as in this thought of connected data and accounts causes an easier track back to you and therefore creates more public information. I think that that is something that we don't necessarily consider when we join all of these social networks. In a way, your Instagram account can be connected with you facebook, linkedin, twitter, etc., and all of these things could be linked to the same email account. That in itself makes it much easier to access more information about a person who is using and sharing all of these accounts. You do seem to have much more control over your personal social media accounts but I find it interesting how easy it would be to lose that control and privacy based solely on linking and sharing various accounts. Sam ediko (discuss • contribs) 21:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3 : Information Overload
To answer the exercise’s questions:

How do you deal with the fact that there is so much information out there and that it is easy to be distracted?


 * Fortunately, I like the overload of information that is out here on the internet and I also like the fact that I can access it almost anytime and everywhere as long as I have my smart phone or another device with internet access with me and some connection to it. We are part of an “always on culture”, how Sherry Turkle describes it in her book Alone Together. All of us have a smart phone nowadays, keep it with us and are constantly wirelessly connected to the internet.
 * Family and Friends can always reach me via Mail, Whatsapp, Facebook Messenger or other Social Networks (SNS), because I have applications for every single one of them on my smart phone and a notification pops up on my display as soon as someone texts me. It could distract me and does, when I let it. But I know me. I do not have a mobile phone case, which cover my display, without a reason. Hence, I do not see, when a message arrives even when I am connected to the WiFi. When I am at work, studying, out with friends or otherwise deeply engaged with something, I simply put my phone away, out of reach, and only use it when it is part of the conversation or helps me to engaging with something even more (or in worst case when I am bored or want to seem busy, I admit that.)

Still, I almost never turn my mobile phone off, because I want to be reachable in case of an emergency, in which no one would text me but call me straight away.

''Why have you come to deal with it in this way? What are the contributing factors for the decisions you make in dealing with this abundance of information?''

'''“Our networked devices encourage a new notion of time because they promise that one can layer more activities onto it. Because you can text while doing something else, texting does not seem to take time but to give you time.”'''


 * And, I know that I cannot do it, I cannot multitask like Turkle explains. I am not getting anywhere, when I am distracted and you rather do something fully or not at all. Hence, I handle it in the described above way, because I consciously want to life the moment.

''How has your workflow coped with the demands of your contribution to the Wikibook Project, and what are you and colleagues doing to improve this workflow?''


 * Firstly, I have to admit that the workflow could be much smoother if Wikipedia’s functions to communicate were a lot more connected. You do not get any notifications or reminder as long as you do not explicitly log into Wiki and see what has been done so far. Therefore, I am spending a lot more time to check on our discussion page once in a while to see if any ideas, links, resources or feedback was shared. We have to maintain engaging ourselves and put more effort into it on writing publicly. Still, my colleagues and I manage it pretty good, because we share the same interests and can rely on each other. We improve our workflow by setting ourselves timeframes, when something ought to be done and keep them, to adress someone directly we still have the possibility to link each other and reply directly. That is how simple it can be.

--DesireeSophie (discuss • contribs) 20:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #3 : Information Overload
Please, feel free to leave any comments on Wiki Exercise #3 below.

By the way, how do you feel about your "life mix"?

--DesireeSophie (discuss • contribs) 20:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I am also not able to multi-task in the way that you say. Whilst there has for many years been an assumption that women in particular can multi-task, and can do it so much better than men, I don't think that it is possible to actually do two things at the same time and have any chance of doing them efficiently or well. I spend most of my life working just now: a full time job; study at university; doing things for the family which also entails a lot of paperwork, and although I do sometimes feel like I am having a day off from the information overload which is endemic in all of the tasks I do, I still find myself thinking about the information that comes my way and what my role is in doing something with that information. Vickthestick (discuss • contribs) 09:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, , It would seem that you find your mobile phone, and with that, online identity, to be a real positive extension of yourself that allows to you be more productive in a world of information abundance thanks to the internet. However you mentioned that you get distracted and, on this topic, do you ever think information, and your phone, can become distracting enough to keep you away from what actually matters in the real-world? In the sense that do you think your mobile ever acts as more of a negative extension than positive one? As you said multitasking is difficult and you'd rather live in the moment. --Campbell Wallace (discuss • contribs) 14:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * , surely my phone keeps me away from what really matters in the real-world. I try to use it as a positive extension of myself and as a support in my everyday-life, but like I also mentioned, I like to use it as distraction as well if something unpleasent comes up. I use it to actually get distracted sometimes, because I do not want to deal with something and rather feel like escaping into the world of my applications and social media, which mostly carries a long tail of negative consequences with it than when I would just have put up with the "unpleasant" right away.

--DesireeSophie (discuss • contribs) 17:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a wonderful quotation that you used to portray multitasking in a manner that I'd never really considered before. Layering activities and multitasking has become so ingrained in our generation through computers and smart phones that we rarely stop to consider the time involved in the equation. To us going on a phone or computer in itself is multitasking because we're aware of the different applications available to us. We rarely go on a device with the belief that we will use it for a sole purpose. However, although I'm intrigued and to a certain point agree with the quotation, I also have to stand by your account of how one handles notifications and information overload. Multitasking is second nature and rather than learning ways to avoid external distractions, our struggle comes from within the device we need for our work and studies. It presents a new challenge as one can no longer just lock themselves in a room to get some work done. It takes more effort to block attention from websites, notification, and media that we are distracted by on our screens. It seems like the only way to truly focus is to completely shut down or hide the devices that should be helping us find information needed for further research. Natashakirmse (discuss • contribs) 01:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)



I agree to your point! It is really interesting to see how digital media and all electronical devices, we rely on so much, do change our behaviour, but in fact because we are ought to use them in our everyday life. They should enhance our lives and be a support for us (overall positively speaking), still, they challenge our limits of time and attention. With the raise of digital media our public sphere changed, disregarding the digital divide people are expected to have access to the internet services. As more and more things change to be only electronically available or online, practices shift to become online without replacing the former analogue ones. The online world grants everyone access to public discussion, thus enhancing Habema’s (1989) idea of the ideal public sphere and the participation in public discussions, but seemingly our analogue practices seem to vanish looking at the aspects of Online-Banking, Online News or also voting gadgets for elections to maintain democracy. --DesireeSophie (discuss • contribs) 08:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
Collective Intelligence is how Pierre Lévy (1990) describes it

That is almost exactly how I experienced the collaborative nature of the wiki process online, at least in my group as we were working on our chapter The Online Real-Life Divide,our contribution to the Wikibook Living in a Connected World. Every member of our group attend the same lectures as I do, thus, does the same key reading and engage with the same topics. But as everyone is interested in specific things, focuses on differently and has controversy opinions, we got into debates, had to distribute topics, confirm consistencies and integrate our viewpoints into the group in order to get a more or less coherent result, which is the ideal usage of the wiki as medium. In short we had to coordinate our distributed intelligence from wherever the group members have, especially during the reading week, in a real time, because the deadline came closer as time passed and questions relied on other users answer. Wiki*edias open source nature makes it easy to track back the narratives and to surveil changes in text in the Wikibook itself. It uses the aspect of surveillance in a good sense. By sharing resources, links, ideas and giving feedback to others, a continuous engagement with the project and our thinking was essential to enhance and spin further ideas. Even though we were eleven people unified in one group, our collective intelligence did not degrade to the negative connotation of the Hive Mind by losing ourselves into the group dynamics. All group members know each other, no one could have stayed anonymous anyway, as we also tackled the topic in face-to-face group discussions offline, which was again very supportive as we could actually see each other and reinforce our opinions by gestures and human reactions, which we could not express online (the equivalent to facial expression would be using emoticons, which is not appropriate considering that the writing on Wikibooks is publicly-viewable. Hence, we mobilized our skills and accomplished Pierre Lévy’s notion of a Collective Intelligence, even though we could have been more effectively, because I myself did not use the main discussion page of the Wikibook after all to get in touch with all groups’ members and looking at our ‘finished’ project page, we could have used the wiki mark-ups more creatively.

Each subtopic of the Living in a Connected World Wikibook is intertwined with the other as everything is as a matter of fact connected to each other just like the title itself suggest. Every subtopic covers more or less deeply the aspects of the other subtopics, i.e. aspects like security and surveillance, the notion of the second life and online gaming and the emerge always-on culture as well as the evolution of the Digital Culture was only able due to the development of digital media and media convergence. It was harder to separate topics from each other and to display their multiple connections to each other than to understand the flow information.

--DesireeSophie (discuss • contribs) 18:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
Feel free to leave any comments. I will to come back to you. --DesireeSophie (discuss • contribs) 18:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi I also felt that we could have used the wiki markup a bit more creatively but I did think that what we had was all clearly labelled and the contents very clear. It had not occurred to me at the time to look extensively at the other chapters being created, but in hindsight it would have been sensible to have checked that our chapter content was not being repeated or contradicted elsewhere. I take your point about the Hive Mind and do agree that we were able to create something which benefitted from the expertise and interests of individuals, rather than all doing the same thing at the same time. It's finished now, so it's all good. Vickthestick (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is done for now, but even if our 'task' is done, I somehow hope that the collection of our Connected Wold Wikibook wil help others to get a brief overwiew and insight into the different topics or to get them start thinking, I sort of want peole to use it after we put so much effort into it to create something that is valid and publicly accessible. Like we noted in todays lecture: Wiki*edia is subjective, because it is driven by us, who follow different interests, even though we try to stay objective, but again that is the specifity about Wiki*edia as an open source and a project of and for the commons.

--DesireeSophie (discuss • contribs) 17:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I would definitely agree with your assessment that our group functioned through collective intelligence rather than through a hive mind. Our differing opinions on what should be emphasized easily displayed the difference in opinions we worked with. I think the vague description of our assignment led to more discussion and debate as we were simply given a topic and had freedom to discuss whatever we wished so long as it related. Our use of Wiki Mark-up could have been more in-depth and I feel that if we had more time and a bit of an easier way to organize and discuss, we could've used it to a fuller extent than simply adding a few pictures and subtitles. However I think overall we managed best we could given the circumstances and communication methods available to us. Natashakirmse (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we had the freedom of choice, which again was a good starting point as we were supposed to discuss and evaulate our ideas relating our module's topics. But looking back at some points I feel like we trifted to much off topic. It is a pity that we didi not managae to have a bit more time too look at our Wikibook as a whole (and adjust some small changes) before the deadline. Maybe it would have been better to actually announce some pople as proofreader, so that we would have known. But yes, it is done now and we managed good, I would agree. --DesireeSophie (discuss • contribs) 08:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi  I agree that every group could of checked in the other chapters to see what points were being covered and cover a different section / another idea in more detail if needed. This would of made the whole book flow more, not just the chapter. But this would of made the task a lot harder to complete as there would of been around 80 people trying to edit and construct a project which wouldn't of been feasible. This was probably why we were split into chapters, but in some cases even these groups were too large. I only had 8 members in my group, so was pretty 'lucky' as it made it a lot easier to discuss our ideas and let them develop. I also agree that our wiki chapters could of looked better by using better mark-ups etc. but for someone who has never used wiki before, I had to teach myself. I learnt a lot, but if I had more time I would probably be able to learn more skills in order for the wiki to look 'nicer'. Susannamhawes (discuss • contribs) 11:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)
The introduction section is incredibly well-written, summarising many key points in relation to the subject matter. A concerted effort is made to communicate sophisticated ideas in a concise, summative way, before proceeding onto the main sections of discussion. The overall structure that follows is well thought out, and evidences deliberation, delegation and timely organisation. Coverage of many of the salient issues surrounding online identity are included, as well as some quite well-chosen examples and cases.

The actual content itself, in the discursive sections, is a little more patchy than what we expect after that Introduction, with some parts that are more superficial and descriptive, yet others that are clearly very well researched, developed, and thought through. The overall effect of this is fine, because as a whole, there is a clear aesthetic that you are writing a hybrid version of a collaborative essay, and an encyclopaedic entry.

There are some instances of typo errors, and a few formatting decisions that could have been better thought through. In addition, the repetition and ill-organisation in one or two subsections (especially the Tinder and Online Dating Websites section, where there is a lot of description, and not much application of theoretical material from the module – references to journalistic pieces on anonymity for example, where reference to good peer-reviewed sources would have given just as good information with obvious added value and opportunity. Anonymity appears in a couple of sections barely sentenced apart, and yet there doesn’t seem to be much joined-up thinking here, nor applying the concept to the section’s subject matter (Tinder and Online dating). Likewise, discussions of various applications repeat (e.g. Snapchat has a few sections specifically devoted to it. Some interwiki links joining up the various sections would have made more of the platform’s functionality.

The final main section, on AI is particularly interesting – it is fairly well structured, well researched, and draws from a wealth of different kinds of sources and materials – ranging from peer-reviewed sources, through journalism and popular cultural materials, to speculative and science fiction. This helps to close off the chapter in a way that establishes a sense of authority as well as being well-written, and therefore is an interesting read, on its own merits. Again, an interwiki link to join the section on Black Mirror with the previous section on the same topic would have been useful.

Referencing – good formatting, good range of sources and materials.


 * 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


 * Excellent. Among other things, these entries will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. They will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. They will address the assignment tasks in a thoughtful way. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts. They will be informed by serious reading and reflection, are likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.


 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, featuring discriminating command of a excellent range of relevant materials and analyses
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material to a wide degree
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument through highly original 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);
 * originality in evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections);
 * significant evidence of independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content of an exemplary quality (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Excellent levels of engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of discussion pages using deployment of considered  judgement relating to key issues, concepts and procedures