User talk:EilidhNo.2

This is my Wikibooks user discussion page, I will be updating this page as I explore Wikibooks with my class. Please feel free to contribute to these discussions. EilidhNo.2 (discuss • contribs) 14:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: Educational Assignment
For many people, the hit series Parks and Recreation is far more than just a standard comedy sitcom. It is proof that television centred on a leading female character can be just as successful, accessible and funny as its male dominated counterparts. The programme shined a light on female performers, with the most notable being Amy Poehler, whose portrayal of Leslie Knope highlights how brilliant comic actresses can be when they are actually given high quality material to work with. The character of Leslie Knope is not only hilarious and both expertly written and performed, but also on par with famous characters such as Michael Scott and David Brent. She is unapologetic about her determination to succeed and never hesitates to express her feminist beliefs. Parks and Recreation promotes feminism and gender equality without coming across as preachy, while also refusing to sideline or ignore their male characters and actors. Each actor has as much comedic ability as the next and it is an example of how equal and even the comedy playing field should be. Celebrated and popular television shows such as Park and Recreation develop a following and fanbase that dominates not only the television industry but creates a notable online presence as well. For young women especially, Parks and Recreation has the changed the landscape of female role models. The show has garnered a recognisable following among websites such as Twitter and Tumblr, as well as sites such as BuzzFeed. The ideals and morals expressed on the programme, while still being funny, show how both television and online media can present positive influences. Women are encouraged to be ambitious and unapologetic, yet kind and supportive at the same time. Confidence can be taken from these kind of examples and the impact that the show has had in the comedy industry and beyond can be seen in its web presence. Progressive comedy such as Parks and Recreation shows that it is not always a terrible thing to be shaped and influenced by the media. Positive role models are being promoted and sexist stereotypes overruled. EilidhNo.2 (discuss • contribs) 23:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments
As someone who loves The Office, I've been told to watch Parks and Recreation by a lot of my friends. Funnily enough, I have just recently begun to watch the show, but started from season 2, and I've fallen in love with it like I did with The Office. The thing that made me look the show up on Netflix was actually the idea behind Galentine's Day. On Saturday 13th February, I was scrolling my Facebook Newsfeed and my Tumblr Dashboard, where I saw various posts referencing this day dedicated to showing love to your friends. I couldn't stop but laugh at the idea, but also kind of liked it in a sort of guilty pleasure way - and I can't deny that I decided there and then that next year I will be forcing my girlfriends to celebrate Galentine's Day with me on the 13th February. Absolutely love what you've said about the female roles in the show, and I completely agree with you. The idea behind Galentine's Day is a really good example of how much the female characters in the show care for each other, especially Amy Poehler's character. Leslie Knope is driven, but also an incredibly funny character, and her friendship with Ann is supportive and a genuine portrayal of a strong female relationship. From what I've seen of the show so far, the female characters are extremely important to the show and I applaud the writers for giving us such a positive outlook on feminism and gender equality. Gnivs (discuss • contribs) 13:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment! I also find myself laughing at the idea of 'Galentine's Day' yet I love it at the same time in exactly the same 'guilty pleasure' kind of way that you do. The way that the idea of 'Galentine's Day' has caught on online and on various forms of social media shows the impact that the show has had. This kind of celebration and appreciation for female friendship is rarely seen in other forms of media, where women are often encouraged to compete with one another and tear each other down. The programme shows how it is possible to be driven and ambitious yet a feminist and friend at the same time. An example of the following that Parks and Recreation has on the internet is exemplified through articles such as this one, where the feminist messages of the show are applauded and highlighted. This article also features many of my own favourite Leslie Knope quotes. EilidhNo.2 (discuss • contribs) 14:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, when I first started watching Parks and Recreation on a friend's recommendation (having never watched The Office), aside from it being so entertaining the thing that struck me most was how it was the first time I had really seen such a well-rounded, strong female lead character in a sit-com. Leslie's relationships with her friends, with her work and with her goals are really refreshing and inspiring to see, as alongside all of her strong character traits she is also very down-to-earth, realistic and relatable. I find this to be welcome to change from strong male leads and weaker supporting female characters, a trope which persists even now; Leslie Knope/ Amy Poehler and the creators of Parks and Recreation have been pushing for better since 2009, and I really admire that. Lilygeorgia96 (discuss • contribs) 20:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment! I completely agree with everything you've stated here. I think 'refreshing' is the perfect word to describe Parks and Recreation. I find female characters in other sitcoms quite one dimensional and stereotypical at times, so it's inspiring to see that the treatment of female characters in television is beginning to change. I too admire the creators of the show and am relieved that the character of Leslie Knope exists to show how ambitious, kind and funny women can be. EilidhNo.2 (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
Your review of Parks and Recreation is well written but would benefit from use of wiki markup. For example, link to an example of the fan following on Twtter and Tumblr, and add some links to content related to the show itself. Your writing would also benefit from a greater critical engagement with the topic. You note that the show promotes positive role models but could have expanded this with further discussion of the wider impact of this. Your comments show a level of engagement with colleagues, but again could be more critically engaged beyond reflecting your opinion on the matter.

A post of this standard roughly corresponds to the following grade 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. Sprowberry (discuss • contribs) 10:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Online Footprint
In a society increasingly revolving around the internet I would say that my own online footprint and online visibility, to my knowledge, is relatively limited. The phrase 'online footprint' is interesting to me, I cannot help but picture mine as somewhat small. My participation with, and involvement in, social media has varied over time and continues to differ to this day. By far my most active forms of online visibility are Facebook and Twitter. Other sites such as Tumblr and Instagram I am yet to fully venture into. In my opinion, social media and the amount of our lives that we post online, does not have to be negative. Being visible online can enhance creativity and motivation as well as broaden career prospects and employment opportunities.

Facebook
I would say that Facebook Messenger is my most used form of social interaction online. I use Messenger everyday yet rarely post anything on my Facebook firsthand. The persona created on my Facebook page tends to be from a perspective other than my own. I am frequently 'tagged' in photos that I have not posted myself, and these are the images that make up the most of my visibility on the website. I rarely, if ever, post actual statuses on Facebook, but I will occasionally post a picture from events or holidays that I want to remember myself. My reasons for being reluctant in posting on Facebook myself have changed over time. When I was in my early teens I would write statuses to post before deleting them instantly. I used to be very apprehensive at the thought of being judged or rejected: 'what if nobody likes it?' used to be a legitimate fear of mine. Nowadays I post on Facebook more but far less than friends of mine who are more active online. I personally use Facebook as a way to gather memories, not to vent or express opinions. I treat Facebook now as some kind of scrapbook, a way to look back on what I've done and where I've been. In every sense of the word I use the platform for connection. When meeting a new person who I hope to stay in contact with the first thing I do instead of swapping phone numbers is to add them on Facebook. It is a way of reaching out to people in a less personal manner, but still with the prospect of developing a friendship. I am a member of countless groups on Facebook where I find job prospects or opportunities. As somebody in the creative industries, Facebook is often an invaluable tool in terms of networking and keeping up with the work of others. I don't necessarily take Facebook very seriously, but I appreciate what the platform offers me in terms on connecting with others.

Twitter
As far as social media goes, Twitter is by far the one that I enjoy using the most. I find Twitter far more personal in terms of feeling free to express myself. While a number of my followers on Twitter are people I have met in real life, it feels less like a site for connecting and staying in touch and more like a place for creativity. Like Facebook, I rarely post myself. I am however far more active on Twitter. For me, Twitter is more influential as a platform. My Twitter feed tends to be made up of news stories, political satire and feminist opinions. I use the site less to keep in touch with people I know and far more to keep up to date with organisations, causes I support, people I am a fan of and things that I love. I struggle to count the number of news stories or political events that I first heard about on Twitter. It is a fast paced and up to date way of interacting with the world while expressing yourself in an environment that feels less intrusive and public than the likes of Facebook.

IMDb
To judge my own visibility online I Googled myself for the first time in years. The first result was the link to my Facebook page, with the security settings on private. A surprising yet pleasant revelation was that I have my own IMDb page, something that I didn't know even existed. My name is described as 'Miscellaneous Crew'. Scrolling further down I found my only credit is as Assistant Director on 'Grace', a short film I worked on for the BFI last year. These details made up the entirety of my IMDb page. It is not a very extensive CV but it is a detail of my life that I am very proud to have online. Interestingly, I found the competition to make that short film with the BFI on both Twitter and Facebook.

It is a scary thought that no matter what we do we can never truly control what aspects of our lives are visible online. I often think about the unsolicited and unrequested photographs or details of my life that may be somewhere on the internet. There must be a countless number of pictures that I am accidentally and inadvertently in the background of, while other personal information such as my address may be easily accessible to strangers. Ultimately I like to think we have the most control over what we chose to put online and how we choose to present ourselves, however it would be naive to think that we have total online autonomy. Most information about myself that I post online is on some form of social media. Social media does not have to be a negative thing by any means. When used responsibly it is a way of not only creating a place online where we feel safe and creative, but also a place to broaden horizons and connect with people. EilidhNo.2 (discuss • contribs) 20:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments
I love what you said about how much we post online shouldn't be seen as negative. I totally agree with that opinion, and think that whatever we choose to post on our own social media pages shouldn't necessarily be seen as a bad thing. Social media can be used in such positive ways, and it helps connecting people across the world and helps us to keep in touch with friends we haven't seen in a long time. I use Facebook in exactly the same way in which you do, and I use Facebook messenger as a messaging platform to speak to most of my friends rather than texting. I completely understand the fear of being judged or rejected online, and to this day that is the reason I don't post personal statuses on Facebook - I will upload photos and will also be tagged in them, but that is the extent of my visibility on the site. I think the feeling of being judged online is a problem, and that is why posting online could be seen as a negative thing rather than a positive. However, I now see it in the same way as you do, I will use the site primarily as a place to store memories rather than using it to express opinions. This is why I think social media is a good thing, and why our visibility online doesn't have to be bad because we use it in a way that suits us. I find everything that you've said in your post really interesting, and despite the fact that I use social media clearly a lot more than you, we do seem to share similarities in how we see the sites and how we use them. It's so odd that you found an IMDb page for yourself, and that's one thing that's scary about our online visibility because sometimes we are unaware of what parts of our lives are on the internet. Gnivs (discuss • contribs)

Thanks for you comment! I totally agree with you, I think that the fear of being judged online leads on to much more serious issues of the internet such as cyber bullying and 'trolling'. I too think that social media and the internet in general can be a positive force in your life. However, because the internet has so much power and plays such an integral role in our society nowadays, it is inevitable that it will also be used for negative pursuits. Social media can often encourage an unhealthy lifestyle and perpetuates a culture of comparing our looks and lives to others. It is nice to know that among this negativity there are other people who use social media in very similar ways to me. EilidhNo.2 (discuss • contribs) 14:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It's so cool that you have an IMBb page! I have an IMBd account I use to track what films I've watched and keep a watch list (currently at 300+ films), but obviously not a page about myself. I use facebook in a very similar way to you, I'm always on messenger, but I only make posts when I'm on holiday, or when I change my profile picture. Although recently, I did share a post announcing I'm studying abroad, but it was originally an instagram post, and I mostly shared it so I didn't have to message family members about it individually, and to see if anyone else in my friend list got into study abroad. Frankly, these past 2 years I feel like I couldn't care less what others think of my facebook. In my study abroad post, my mum and aunt both commented with "Arriba! Arriba!", and my mum even added a picture of Speedy Gonzales on her comment (although I'm going to Spain, not Mexico), and when I was 14-16, I would've deleted those comments immediately and would probably be very upset they even dared to comment something like that in front of my friends. But I thought those comments were funny, and I don't care what my facebook friends think of my family. I actually really like my mum's facebook, her profile picture used to be a really close up of her face smiling, like the whole square frame was her face, it was hilarious, but now she had to change it when she started to go job hunting. Anyways, I completely agree with what you said about how how we do have quite a bit of control over our online visibility with privacy settings and even just the fact we have free choice over what we post. Sometimes, though, things about individuals are posted publicly on social media without their consent as this information was shared "privately", the most common example probably being nude pictures. Then there's also things like saying racists, sexist, or just anything bad on the internet, even anonymously, and having it suddenly have real life consequences like losing your job. There's also a law called "The Right to be Forgotten" in the EU and Argentina, which (very breifly) means that Google and other search engines have to delete certain results if requested, and there are really interesting issues that arrise from this, discussed in Nerdwriter1's YouTube video and this segment from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. Sleepyzoe (discuss • contribs) 11:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I really appreciate your comment! Your point about private information being posted publicly without consent is very important. Your example of nude pictures highlights the way in which the internet can often be used for bullying or forms of revenge. This clear violation of individuals rights is sickening and happens all too frequently online. Women in particular are often targeted in this way, take for example the countless number of nude photo 'scandals' where female celebrities private images are stolen and then leaked online. All of this leads on to much bigger and scarier elements of privacy and invasion on the internet, and also the way that people can feel 'entitled' to private information. I really appreciate your links, I will have a look at them! EilidhNo.2 (discuss • contribs) 18:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload
The amount of information available at the touch of a button is staggering.

Not only has the internet changed the way I interact with people, it was changed the way I learn and gather information. Now, instead of looking to a book for a fact, I look to Google. I believe the availability of information online is both a blessing and a curse. Long gone are the days where you had to scroll through hours worth of library books to find the perfect quote or figure for academic work, now all you have to do is simply log online. Many have argued that the growth of the internet as a learning tool has made the library an obsolete institution. This, I disagree with however there has been much debate on the subject. Articles such as this one from the Huffington Post are key examples of how the easy access to information online has changed the landscape of societal establishments.

I personally still use libraries, but only for niche subjects and topics that I need a particular book or journal to learn from. When looking for information, more often than not my first port of call is Google. I find myself searching for all manner of information online purely because I can. If I am watching TV or speaking to a friend, if something comes up that I have never heard of or want to learn more about then I will reach for my phone and in a matter of seconds will have learnt something new. I rarely watch a film anymore without Googling the actors, directors and writers. Unless I am in the cinema then this Googling for information will take place whilst I am watching. Not only does this take me away from the world of the film but it can be antisocial and irritating for others if I am in company.

It is the ease with which information can be gathered online that distracts me the most. I can jump from article to article and Wikipedia page to Wikipedia page in no time at all. Online, all information links on to other information. There is always something to learn and never enough time to see it all. Because I use the internet to procrastinate, going online now to do actual academic work takes a huge amount of discipline. I find it impossible to start using Google for university work without finding myself unexpectedly reading about Justin Trudeau or Bernie Sanders and I can't even explain how I got there. The internet gives people a sense of power and entitlement to information. As soon as a question pops into my mind I can find the answer with limited effort in a very short space of time which is the most mind blowing element of the internet of all.

Comments
The idea of libraries being obsolete now is genuinely quite sad, because I remember going to my local library as a child and picking out books rather than relying on the internet to entertain me. Obviously, that was years ago now, and nowadays the only reason I've gone to the library is to print off essays for University. I'm the kind of person that will usually use online resources, and search google for articles etc to help me with my work. I don't think libraries are totally obsolete now, because we still need books and a lot of people do still rely on them for information. However, you've clearly made the point here about Google now being the main source of information - which I totally agree with.

The problem with being seen as antisocial and irritating people around you by being on your phone is extremely relatable. I can never seem to look away from my screen, and it does tend to lead to my friend's having to take my phone away from me. However, there have been instances where I'll be in a group and we'll all be staring at some type of screen. It's arguably very antisocial (and to be honest, it is) but, in those situations we are all usually looking things up online to show each other and to share with the group. I think the access that we have to all this information is really impressive, and it's incredible what we are able to find out with little to no effort.

I'm in the same position as you, as I will usually be distracted by the internet when I'm needing to use it for assignments. I think your whole post was really interesting, and spot on. The internet is an incredible source of information, and we're lucky to have such a huge database at our fingertips. Gnivs (discuss • contribs) 21:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment! I really agree with everything you say here. I think your point about being on your phone or looking at some kind of screen in a group situation is especially interesting and I agree that it isn't necessarily always antisocial. I like your comment that often we use the internet to find things to share with other people, this arguably being the point of social media anyway. I find myself constantly finding videos or pictures that I then share with friends that sparks conversation and discussion. I also firmly believe that things such as films can unite people and bring people together, an example of when looking at a shared screen can be somewhat social. I love the idea that the internet and the knowledge it provides us with allows us to share with others, rather than limiting our communication skills in real life. EilidhNo.2 (discuss • contribs) 20:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I really liked your take on this. I personally still enjoy going to the library to look for information, especially the university library, but getting the information digitally is definitely more convenient. Being able to press ctrl+F is so much faster than looking through a book's index, and sometimes there isn't even an index. However, there are things that can't really be found on the internet, like copyright problems. But I also really like finding books that people who have clearly researched the thing I'm researching, and they've highlighted the best quotes. Your comment about jumping from wikipedia page to page actually reminded me of a game we used to play in school. We used to just call it the wiki game, but the Wikipedia article calls is Wikiracing among other much cooler names. The rules are basically you got with a partner, you both click the "random article" button, and you race to get to your partner's page by only clicking other links on the wiki pages. As the linked page says, going to country articles are usually very helpful. Playing it a few times just shows how how pretty much everything is interlinked on this site, and obviously just home much information there is. Sleepyzoe (discuss • contribs) 23:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comment! Your comment about the game you used to play on Wikipedia is so interesting! Much like the games you introduced me to in one of your posts about the games you can play on Google Maps, I also had no idea that there were games involving Wikipedia. I think it's fascinating that that kind of activity even exists, as you say it is a testament to the way that everything online is ultimately linked and connected. The fact that such vastly different information is all available so easily and in the same place is astonishing. EilidhNo.2 (discuss • contribs) 20:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think your comment on how "the internet gives people a sense of power and entitlement to information" sums this entire topic up very well. The fact that we now have such instantaneous access to pretty much any information we require has made us very reliant upon the internet. Personally, if I'm looking for something to help me write an essay, a quote or a source, and the exact thing I'm looking for isn't available online in a complete and accessible format, I feel like I'm unnecessarily disappointed- the sense of entitlement is strong because what we have grown used to. It's entirely true that there is an overload of information available to us, which makes it sound even more ridiculous that we can be surprised or disappointed when something, no matter how niche or specific, isn't right there at our fingertips. It puts into perspective what this information overload can do to us. Lilygeorgia96 (discuss • contribs) 00:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your comment! I absolutely agree with the points you make here. I can relate to the feeling of being reliant on the internet, often for the most basic of things, and it makes me somewhat frustrated that I feel like I need to be online so often. I find your point about the frustration at not being able to find something you need online especially interesting. I think that we have been conditioned to think that everything we should need to know is online, and that we have the right to access any kind of knowledge or information whenever we want. This is of course not the case, however the huge amount of information that is online makes it so much more unjustifiably irritating when we cannot find something that we are looking for, and think that we are entitled to, online. I think this links back to 'always on' culture, not necessarily only relating to social media but also in relation to the abundance of information we have access to at the click of a button. EilidhNo.2 (discuss • contribs) 20:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
Ultimately I felt there were some fundamental issues with the supposedly collaborative nature of the online Wiki process. Generally, it was extremely difficult to actually and effectively collaborate with anyone. I believe there were some basic oversights in the decision to allow over thirty students to cover the same chapter of a Wikibook. The original groups that were formed within seminars became completely redundant as we ultimately had to try and communicate with, and work alongside, a much more substantial number of students who we had never had any face to face interaction with.

Organisation and communication proved somewhat difficult, though not impossible. Wiki can become a confusing and muddled platform to try and stage worthwhile and coherent discussions on. I believe our group did manage somewhat efficiently however many students, including myself, felt considerably blindsided and out of the loop when the vast majority of decisions about our shared chapter were made by a handful of other students with no warning. I do think, however, that this was mainly a fault with the explanation of the project, rather than with those students who wanted to start work immediately. Overall I believe there was a huge amount of delegation, rather than collaboration.

The limited collaboration that did take place appeared to happen for more online, than off – this being a debated element of the ‘Civic Web’. Students did manage to share ideas and discuss topics with others outside of their original group, however the extent of this sharing took place of the discussion pages of Wikibooks. I think overall this project was flawed, yet I did learn some skills during the process. Participating to the Wikibook aided my online development, in both actively trying to engage with people online on a platform other than social media, and also with basic administrative and technical skills that I did not have before. Power struggles aside, the collaborative nature of this project – and all online work in general – arguably links in very well to the principles and concepts regarding ‘The Civic Web’.

The topic of the Civic Web is a complicated one, with a diverse range of meanings. It is difficult to define due to the fundamental nature of politics, what makes something overtly political and what it really means to be an active participant in something. It can be argued that the internet as a tool and as a device is inherently political. It is designed for sharing, collaborating and debate.

In terms of the Wikibook project, a group of young people working together to learn and share information on public and private spheres in the digital age is – albeit challenging – arguably an example of the participation element of the civic web. While our project was not a political campaign, nor anything controversial or newsworthy, it was still a collaborative act that allowed young people to voice their opinions and knowledge on relevant and important technological topics. In ‘The Civic Web: Young People, the Internet and Civic Participation’, Shakuntala Banaji and David Buckingham comment that “some argue that the internet will immediately motivate young people, that it is their medium, and that they already have the skills to use it.” (2013, p.47) This was not entirely true in the case of Wiki. For the majority of the students, Wikibooks was completely new territory. It was unfamiliar and initially difficult to operate - in the most part it was not our medium at all. Bearing this in mind I think the final product came together well and is well structured and coherent.

EilidhNo.2 (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments
I feel as though most of the people on the course all have similar views, so everything you have said in this post I can fully agree with. The collaborative nature of this project was lost due to the setup of it, and the sudden take over by other students. I do agree that it isn't their fault however, and it was down to the explanation of the project. I like that you mentioned being able to contact people on a platform that isn't social media. Also your mention of the civic web was interesting, I was hesitant to mention it in my post as I don't really understand the concept at all but I like everything you've said about it and managed to link it back to the Wikibooks project. The project itself was definitely flawed, but you've come up with some good points as to why it could have been a useful assignment for us to do. Gnivs (discuss • contribs) 13:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It's good to know that it wasn't just our group who had "failed" as a group. We obviously had to collaborate with the other members who were working on the same topic as us, so I didn't see the point in the smaller group of fours either. I definitely agree that the Internet is more our generation's platform, where we can express our freedom and share ideas about anything we're interested in, but don't you think that this project went against this idea in a way? --Evp09 (discuss • contribs) 20:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I love your wording of "out of the loop", you really pinpointed exactly what it felt like working on this wikibook. It really felt like there were 4 or 5 people who know exactly what they were doing and how this book was going to look and include, and the other 25+ people had to either follow or try to change it, but I definitely felt left out in the decision of what this wikibook was going to be like, and felt like I had pretty much no control. And I completely agree that it wasn't those handful of students' faults, I'm sure they didn't want to make the rest of the group feel like this, and I think they also didn't realise what a collaboration of a group of 30 people would even look like. I feel that maybe they just had a better vision or idea of what the task was, but I was completely lost. I tried to read the module outline about 10 times during this assignment, and still didn't know. I then tried to ask a few questions in the workshops, but after my second simple question, I received extremely vague and ultimately unhelpful answers, and overall felt that my questions weren't welcome, and I should figure it all out myself. But as you said in your last line, we did manage to eventually create a pretty extensive book that even looks like it was well made, but I don't know if it's coherent because I have no interest in reading it, and struggle to see its relevance to anything I will study outside of this module. Sleepyzoe (discuss • contribs) 09:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
There's relatively little evidence of engagement with peers in your contribs but made substantial edits to the wikibook chapter over a period of time. You show more engagement and critical reflection with module themes in the exercises although you could push your analysis further with clearer links to secondary reading (which only occurs in the final exercise.

Content (weighted 20%)

 * 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.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, although some ideas and procedures more securely grasped than others
 * evidence of independent reading of somewhat circumscribed range of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument featuring variable depth of understanding
 * satisfactory level of evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * satisfactory level of evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections in discussion);
 * evidence of variable independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

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

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)