User talk:Eilidh no.1

This is my wiki books discussion page. I will be exploring wiki books are part of my course work. Feel free to comment and have discussions with me on my work. Eilidh no.1 (discuss • contribs) 14:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the wiki books user page for Eilidh I will be adding to this page as I explore wiki books with my class. Eilidh no.1 (discuss • contribs) 14:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: Screen Time This is an exercise to do with my course work and my class. Please create a discussion with me on my work. I personally find Ben Phillips pranks on his brother Elliot entertaining. Ben pranks Elliot and then posts his reactions on Facebook. I find Elliot's reactions funny and the pranks are always entertaining. Some examples include putting chili in his food, dying his hair, putting make up on him. The outraged reactions are always the funniest part. Some people say the pranks are staged and that it is all an act for the camera and people watching online. How much do people think you tubers and video bloggers play up to the cameras and if we met them face to face would they act the same as they do online?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDJ324AauoE Eilidh no.1 (discuss • contribs) 12:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2:Visibility and Online Footprint This is part of an exercise with my classmates to discuss how visible we are online and how much control we have over this. Having a Facebook page I have noticed people can be tagged and even recorded with the exact time and place being recorded and uploaded to their profile. If each person is not a regular user of Facebook then anything could be posted and everyone would see but they might have no idea. Is it fair therefore that the settings on Facebook, for example, automatically let these notifications show up and people have to opt out of this option and make it private rather than choose to let others see. So the Profile is automatically private when you sign up then you choose how much you want people to see or show of you. Eilidh no.1 (discuss • contribs) 17:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
I almost missed your exercise as it is in the wrong location. Make sure to post these on your discussion page rather than your user page, which is more like a profile page. The post is confusing as you start talking about characters without introducing the subject: Who are Ben and Elliot? Your discussion of playing up to the camera would have linked up quite nicely to the module theme of 'online identity'. When there is a link in your exercises, it is a good idea to make this connection apparent and bring in some of the main thinkers and theories discussed during the module. You have also not commented on your colleagues' exercises. Remember that engagement is vital in the assignment and remember to do this for future exercises and the Wikibooks assignment.

A post of this standard roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor: Poor. Among other things, poor entries may just offer links without real comment or apparent point. They may offer nothing more than poor-quality synopsis or description of material of dubious relevance. They may have serious clarity problems (including dead links, random graphics) which affect comprehension (or even worse, admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement). They might be off-topic, private trivia, or of unclear relevance. The wiki markup formatting will be of a poor standard. Sprowberry (discuss • contribs) 10:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload
Through Facebook you can become friends with someone who you either know of or have met once or have just heard about. You already know their full name, where they live, their age, there occupation, education, family member’s, relationship status and their likes and dislikes so already you have much more information about this person than you would if you were interacting with them offline. This therefore means you have an impression of them through their online self and through the way they present themselves which may not be a true representation of who they are when you meet them in real life. Your first impressions of this person may be different on how they really are. Most people will also include this type of information being quite public on their profiles. Is all this information really necessary and is it not a bit weird that we can know so much about a person we don’t actually know? Not only other users will have access to this information but Facebook also does and it uses it to supply advertisers with this information so they can personally target your interests using the personal information each person supplies on their page. They can then target you with products they think you will like. This is something that would never be achieved offline and the user has no way of opting out of being targeted by advertisers. Surely people should have the option to not let advertisers use their information to target them. What else could they therefore be doing with this information. Fuchs, C. (2014). Social media. London: SAGE Publications. Eilidh no.1 (discuss • contribs) 12:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

{{replyto|Eilidh no.1 It's very true what you're saying here about knowing way to much about someone who you've barely interacted with face to face, all because of their identity online. Although this is sometimes very handy for getting some sort of first impression of someone behind closed doors, it's really not the most accurate way to get to know somebody because, like you said, people will try to control your first impression of them through how they present themselves online. I heard a segment on Radio 1 today which discussed online dating profiles and there were concerns raised about sexual attacks which have happened as a result of misleading profiles and false information posted about candidates on these accounts. So this just goes to show that it is so easy to lie about yourself through online accounts, so much so that it results in others getting hurt. The freedom of creating whatever kind of persona you want for yourself online can have the potential to mislead people, which is silly because when you meet face to face, all of the lies will become very obvious very quickly. Also, I have noticed this 'tailored' advertising that facebook has Introduced. And As much as they probably think they are doing us a favour, I personally feel a bit wary about it, because the advertisements which appear are usually from websites which I have recently visited, and I don't understand how Facebook would know this, so it is both interesting and worrying to find out just how much information Facebook can access through your accounts. So, overall, I think the main concern here is not so much that there is a lot of information online, but that it is just so easy to access. 14buchananL (discuss • contribs) 23:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
In our group discussions we talked about public and private spheres in the digital age and looked at what was involved in this topic. How we could add to the page. We talked about what areas we would cover as individuals but how we would collaboratively help each other out while focusing on certain areas to look at. As our page was started very early on many of us felt we were only just coming to terms with how to use the site by the time the page had been laid out and a lot had been done. With some people obviously having more time to spend on this a lot had been added which felt overwhelming to try and join in. Our sub group worked well as a team and we often discussed how to work the page and helped one another to achieve what we wanted. However working in subgroups as part of a larger group was quite difficult. Anonymous users were less easy to interact and discuss ideas with. People on the page made it seem It seemed a little competitive across groups as if we were against one another rather than all working on the same project together. I felt certain members of the page took over and decided that they would try and do the whole thing and not collaborate and work as a team or help others out. As it was a group project many members tried to claim sections they had come up with which is not what working as a team is about. There was a definite clear leader on the page which was often frustrating as it felt as though you needed approval from this person who had just put themselves in this role rather than it being free for contribution and people could write what they wanted after all it is Wikipedia. I think it means more to people that they came up with ideas and therefore they don’t want to share or help each other out in these areas. Where Jenkins says that people will support and share ideas with one another I feel like face to face this works but online people seem to want to claim ideas as their own. Some people are more technically cable than others there for have a better ability to express their opinion before anyone else this makes the process less democratic as some people have more knowledge and therefore can work the site better than others. It is therefore less democratic participation and more one person or group organizing content than working together as a team and developing ideas in a collaborative way to come to the end result as a group. This would mean helping others rather than one person doing everything, everyone may participate but it may not be a group effort and democratic as more technical able people can do things others can’t so they can take over. If young people are to be more civic activists I think these types of sites need to be easier to use so anyone can use them and not just people who have spent a lot of time working it out. People use Facebook because it is quick and easy and not complicated if a site is easy to pick up and work then I think people are more likely to take part in civic engagement in comparison to just browsing social media. Eilidh no.1 (discuss • contribs) 11:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
You understandably show some of the difficulties of being in a crowded group. There's evidence of trying to find a fit in a large group, although a greater spirit of collaboration would have helped to ensure that you integrated into this group more. Your exercises were off topic at times and more descriptive than analytical. Make sure to stick to the brief and try to add further argumentation even within the space of a blog post. Further use of secondary reading would help with this transition. It's also useful to thoroughly proofread all submissions, whether traditional essays or wikis.

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 limited critical engagement with set material, although most ideas and procedures insecurely grasped
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material limited, displaying a qualified familiarity with a minimally sufficient range of relevant materials
 * Argument and analysis:
 * poorly articulated and supported argument;
 * lack of evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * lack 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 independent critical ability limited, due to the fact that your grasp of the analytical issues and concepts, although generally reasonable, is somewhat insecure.

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content suggests minimally sufficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Acceptable engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Limited reflexivity and creativity, and a somewhat insecure management of discussion pages

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 14:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)