User talk:Eilish2

Hi,

My name is Eilish2. I am taking part in an educational class project and this wikibook will be part of the project which I am looking forward to.

Eilish2 (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Eilish2

WIKI EXERCISE #1 What is a good wiki - online collaboration:
In a world where technology is a huge part of our everyday lives, the Internet "modern communication" collaboration really means working together to reach a common goal. Collaboration vs. True Online Collaboration though, is the question. Collaboration is a very broad term.

My own personal experience of using the internet on a day-to-day general sense, would typically comprise of using Facebook, twitter, Instagram and searching the web for any tasks I have to do for university.

As this is my first time creating and using Wikipedia and Wikibooks, I notice some qualititative differences when posting something on here, as opposed to posting on Facebook or twitter etc.

For example: posting on Wikibooks is clear however, as it is new to me I need to get used to doing it more frequently! I also believe the quality of the information posted on Wikipedia is supposed to be accurate information and backed up by relevant sources whereas the information posted on social media is technically just word of mouth.

I hope to find out more about Wikipedia and Wikibooks throughout my class project.

Eilish2 (discuss • contribs) 12:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Eilish2 Eilish2 (discuss • contribs) 12:09, 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.


 * Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory entries may try to relate an idea from the module to an original example, but might not be very convincing. They may waste space on synopsis or description, rather than making a point. They may have spelling or grammatical errors and typos. They might not demonstrate more than a single quick pass at the assignment, informed only by lecture and/or cursory reading. They may suggest reading but not thinking (or indeed the reverse). The wiki markup formatting will need some work.


 * 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 – none undertaken. This would effectively halve your mark.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 18:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Eilish2, I agree with you that posts on social media are a lot more opinion based and therefore in some cases can be biased. In relation to that, I feel as though social media stands to promote opinion and allow people the opportunity to communicate with other users who have the same/differing opinions on certain topics. This of course differs, as you mentioned, with Wikipedia in which it stands to inform people on various subjects therefore it has to be as accurate as possible and extensively researched. With that in mind, we use both platforms for different purposes of which I think we are all aware.

Hayleygil (discuss • contribs) 21:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Hayleygil

WIKI EXERCISE #2: VISIBILITY AND DATA TRAILS
As I familiarise myself with the world of Wikibooks, I would like to make my second post on a topic in which I'm sure many can relate to. I, like many people, enjoy posting, sharing, and uploading exciting things that happen in my life in order for my friends to see. I share these in the hope that my friends on social media enjoy seeing what I am getting up to or what is happening in my life. I enjoy posting these on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. However, sometimes I ask myself, "do I really know everyone that I have as a friend on Facebook? Do I really know everyone that follows me on Instagram or Twitter?"

Despite the fact that I have my Facebook and Instagram profiles on private, I do have a significant amount of followers. I, however believe that the amount of people that follow me or add me is under my control as I have that power due to the fact I have my Instagram and twitter profiles on private, I can accept or decline any requests I choose to. However, I believe not everyone is as cautious. I believe that there are specific empirical issues that many social media users need to keep in mind when posting their information for other users to see, such as: security issues (identity theft/fraud) and also general privacy issues.

To make a further point on this idea of online visibility, I would like to state a point made by Mendelson and Papcharissi, surrounding the idea that "photos are selected, presented and tagged" which reiterates my point behind a sense of power and control, that a social media user has. Just like here, on Wikibooks. We have the power to post what we like, however, we do not have control over what others post just like social media sites which could be seen as a downfall.

I hope you enjoy reading and can relate to this post in some shape or form. Any informative feedback would be widely appreciated.

Eilish2 (discuss • contribs) 22:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Eilish2

Eilish2 (discuss • contribs) 22:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Eilish2: Hello Eilish! I know that every now and again I also ask myself the questions of how many of my friends on social media sites I actually know, and I know that there are people I have accepted that I do not necessarily remember or know of now, but I did at some point in my past. I just never know whether or not to un-friend them, or to just leave them there and maybe once in a while get a random update from them.

I agree that as social media users we have the ability to control who we allow to follow or add, but what does it take for us to take this power into account and stay a little safer online (if that is even possible)? A lot of our friends will appear to use sites like we would, but is it a good thing for us to assume that they are? I know that one of my friends has a great fascination with memes, so they actually went through a lot of their friends profiles to get specific pictures for the memes they were creating (one of them was me, and I only found this out as he liked an old picture of me at a nightclub, then preceded to tell me what he was doing once I had asked because I refused to believe that he went through months of pictures just to find the one he had originally liked).

I like your quote from Mendelson and Papacharissi to further your point of our power and control, but I think that this only shows us that, as social media users, we only have power and control of how we try to present ourselves online because no matter what we do or do not post our online activities will be monitored. When looking into my own visibility and data trails online, I found it far too easy to find information about me that I know for a fact that I had never posted online, which only made me more aware of the fact that no matter how much we try to control what we show of ourselves through social media, there will be other people out there monitoring our movements, especially online. One of the easiest ways to back this up is to simply look at this project as a formalised microcosm of the internet. Different groups, different classes, different people, all monitored... though, fortunately, all for a grade.

SinaOhlandt (discuss • contribs) 01:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Eilish2, I appreciate the fact you mentioned that we don't have control over what other people post. We can be as cautious as we want with what we post but we can't stop someone from commenting on our posts especially if we have allowed them access to our online profiles. We do however, have the power to block and remove comments. Also, as you mentioned we can set our profiles so that we need to grant users access to our profiles. However, it's still not guaranteed that users won't find out information about us given that it might appear on our friend's or family's posts - reaching a whole new set of users. Do you think that makes us more vulnerable online?

Hayleygil (discuss • contribs) 23:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

WIKI EXERCISE #3: INFORMATION OVERLOAD
It could be argued that we are in a state of persistent "connectivity" as we are "tethered" to the technology that we consume [Danah Boyd & Turkle] - this implies that we do not seem to acknowledge or recognise any boundaries in terms of realising where we should separate our public and private lives or in other words what we want others to know and what we do not want others to know. As I relate back to Danah Boyd'a quote, I personally agree that we are constantly connected in a state of permanent or semi permanent connectivity. "[...] those little devices in our pockets are so psychologically- powerful, that they don’t only change what we do – they change who we are." So how do we know when enough is enough? How do we know when to take a step back from technology and take time to live in the real world? When will we realise that we are flooding ourselves with 'too much' technology and information? I like Boyd's statement and think it is extremely relevant to the times we live in, don't you?

"It’s no longer about on or off really. It’s about living in a world where being networked to people and information wherever and whenever you need it is just assumed. I may not be always-on the Internet as we think of it colloquially, but I am always connected to the network. And that’s what it means to be always-on." (2012 71-72) Eilish2 (discuss • contribs) 00:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Eilish2 Eilish2 (discuss • contribs) 00:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

WIKI EXERCISE #4: REFLECTIVE ACCOUNT ON WIKIBOOK
If I was to sum up the wikibook project in three words, it would look something like this: CHALLENGING, INTERESTING & DIFFERENT!

I have never done anything like this project before so this whole experience was completely and utterly new to me. The wikibook project was not just another typical example of a group project, it took extra communication and thought in terms of all of the other groups working on this project, too. I had the pleasure of working with four other pleasant, hard working ladies who always helped each other out no matter what the query was - despite the fact I felt I bored them so much with so many questions on the project! But this to me showed me that I was working within a group who cared about its members and wanted to make sure everyone felt comfortable with what their task was. I believe that everyone in my group pulled their weight and did what was asked, and even more! We kept in contact through email, made a groupchat on Facebook, kept in contact on our group discussion page and also made a point of meeting up in the computer labs to clarify any queries that anyone had. This thoroughly helped me complete my share of the task as I said previously, I have never done anything wiki related before so the girls in my group made me feel extremely at ease. We tackled this project by splitting our section up into five different sub sections and took one each. As I stated previously, we all clarified any queries we had so this thoroughly helped in tackling the project as a whole.

I am not too sure if I would hurry into a project like this anytime soon! But, on the plus side, if I had to do another task just like this then I would be hopeful that I would be in a group like the one I had and I would put as much into the next one, if not more, due to the fact I would feel much more confident on the next project! Eilish2 (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Eilish2 Eilish2 (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with your assessment that this project was challenging, interesting and different - I'd never edited a wikipedia article before, let alone contributed to create an entire page. Like your group, mine also made a facebook chat, as it was much easier to have instant communication than it is on wikibooks. We also split up sections between ourselves, as this made it clear who was writing what and ensured we wouldn't forget any topics as they were all covered. Mmmorgaine (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Eilish, it sounds like you had a good group that helped each other out, i'd say that this must of been one of the most important aspects of this exercise as having a good team makes all the difference. Would you say you enjoyed this project, or any aspects of it? Personally I like replying to comments and reading other peoples discussion as everyone seems to have a new approach to a topic and come away with additional information which I may of missed. Do you think you are going to continue as an active member of wikibooks and add to its content, or do you feel you have had enough for the moment? When my group met up face to face to organise our project I feel this helped me out and made everything much clearer. I feel discussing and organising something in real life rather than a group chat seems to be more beneficial. Do you feel the same way? Jackhand1 (discuss • contribs) 16:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work


The introduction section here is a little brief, however it draws its strength from being well written, in an accessible language. In addition to this, very usefully, each section has been laid out in bullet point format, with a very brief summative sentence for each section. The sections themselves represent wide coverage of many of the main issues surrounding privacy in contemporary popular culture.

However, of particular use here – and very much a strength of the chapter as a whole, is the section that draws together the issues raised here, and applies these to other areas of the wikibook as a whole, explicitly making more of the platform than would otherwise have been, had the groups decided to write this chapter in isolation. To be clear, the execution of this section could have been better – greatly improved through more systematic use of interwiki links to draw attention to the specific pages, sections and issues from the various pages in the wikibook which you were commenting on. Another specific section here that could have been improved is the section on celebrity vlogging. Whereas it is true that there hasn’t been a lot written on this (yet – there is a growing interest in the scholarship, and we can expect much more appearing in the short term), it should have been acknowledged that the scholarship on celebrity culture as a whole is very well established, and that most of the issues raised in relation to YouTubers (e.g. “the price of fame”, privacy issues, and the implied “fair game” logic) are covered in existing debates on celebrity. All that said, the potential for this last section was recognised and other parts of it fully engaged with existing research in the field, and therefore is rewarded.

Structure-wise, the chapter seems to hang together fairly well – the definitions section at the beginning, whilst by no means exhaustive, gives the reader a sense of the subject matter under discussion early on, and also some useful working definitions of key terms used. Some typo errors and inconsistency of formatting appear dotted throughout, but these are not the norm for this chapter. Odd inclusion of bibliographical material of theorists, but no discussion or application their ideas in that section (especially in the case of Fuchs, where it lists a few of his research association and academic achievements. A little bit more joined-up work would have improved on this section enormously.

The unusual step of including a survey and posting the results here is an extremely useful one. Something that absolutely HAS to be thought through in ALL future work is that if one is conducting a survey (even if for demonstration purposes, as included here) or indeed ANY work with people, one must go through an ethics approval process – this is to ensure no harms (relative or absolute) occur for researchers or participants. This process will become more apparent later in the degree programme, particularly in final year projects. 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. Some of the formatting seems to go awry towards the end, so a little more joined-up thinking there would have been useful, but overall good.


 * 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


 * 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.


 * 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%)

 * 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