User talk:EmilymDaniel

Wiki Exercise #1: What Makes a Good Wiki?
There are three key elements which come to mind when I think of how I consume social media: education, entertainment and socialising. In general, the majority of the time I spend online revolves more around the latter two, whether it’s watching a video on YouTube or catching up with friends and family via Facebook Messenger. In relation to education, it's usually a more monotonous experience such as reading online journals for essays or listening to a lecture, something that is ultimately passive. This is where the Wikibooks project intrigues me as it’s a tool for learning new things with an interactive function built in, so it essentially combines education, entertainment and socialising.

The format reminds me of Reddit, a website I use every day to keep up with current events that are tailored to my specific interests. Reddit lets you subscribe to various subreddits which supply user-generated content based on a whole range of topics including television programmes, memes, politics, art, recipes and more. The comments on each post discusses the topic further, so the act of having an anonymous conversation with others who have the same interests is very rewarding. There are even some subreddits which allow users to buy one another presents by sharing their Amazon Wish Lists or gifting each other pizza.

Reddit is one social media platform which resembles the Wikibooks format, but the main difference is that Reddit's 'purpose' is more for entertainment rather than education (although there are subreddits which focus mainly on educating others). Wikibooks seems to have more of a fixed goal; to collectively enhance the user’s understanding of the world, whereas Reddit is more stagnant in its approach and allows more leeway on what can be posted.

Succeed is an example of an online learning environment which Universities encourage students to use as much as possible. While it is useful for presenting learning materials for each module in an organised way, there is a key feature which doesn’t get used as much as it could - the seminar group discussion pages. I have never seen these group forums used, nor have I attempted to use them. If I have a question about the module, I tend to ask my close peers via Facebook. So while there are educational online programmes which allow specialised discussions to take place, there is little demand for their use. This leaves the larger and more established social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to assume the role of interaction between students, which could be limiting as not everyone is friends with everyone in their seminars. This is how the Wikibooks project could be utilised to its full potential. Because it is open to anyone, it gives the users more of a chance to interact and give constructive feedback. The main obstacle to overcome would be encouraging others to upload content and engage regularly, as its function depends on user-based content.

To sum up, my overall experience of online media is primarily based around entertainment and socialising on sites like Reddit, Facebook and YouTube. I am keen to expand my engagement with a focus on educational resources and look forward to working with Wikibooks further. -- EmilymDaniel (discuss • contribs) 11:18, 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.


 * 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.


 * This post is at the lower end of this grade band, so there’s clearly room for improvement here, although you seem to be working at a high level of critical engagement with the frameworks (both conceptually and practically). 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, you are starting to get to grips with the wiki markup and functionality with some proficiency already (probably far more proficient than me!).


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts - these are especially 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). Keep this up!

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 10:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Other Contributor's Comments

 * I find this very interesting as I have never used sites like Reddit before and I wasn't aware there were similarities with the way Wikibooks works but also differences in regards to its function. I also didn't consider Succeed when I thought about the different sites I use now, but I would say I spend a lot of time on Succeed and I have in fact had to make use of the seminar blog sections in previous modules. I found using them very useful as I could read through other students' submissions and learn from their learning and also gain feedback from them and from tutors. The way we submitted entries also reminds me a lot of the way we make edits on Wikipedia. I think the use of Wikibooks could encourage more group discussions and perhaps, through this project, the Succeed seminar dicussion and blog features may also benefit being of use. -- Tinytalia (discuss • contribs) 13:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for comment, you're the only person I know (so far) who has used the seminar blog sections, I'll definitely look into them more now. -- EmilymDaniel (discuss • contribs) 20:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Reddit is fake news. Let me expand; ; the astonishing variety of subreddits on offer would seem to promise an endless source of information on any topic with a great diversity of views borne out in the comments, however, I feel that Reddit is a socially liberal and politically conservative space; the supposed ‘freedom’ of the innumerable options is the hallmark of a liberalism that in effect achieves the exact opposite of any emancipatory goal leaving us only the impression of progress. A fake progress. Who uses Reddit? Could it be the same people who gushed with praise over Meryl Streep’s pontification act at the Golden Globes? Who watched the series Friends and who would be surprised to learn the average viewer of this show was white, comfortably middle or upper-middle class? Friends was a segregated show that didn’t feature a non-white character until its 9th season. The obvious observation made by Michael Moore was that white New Yorkers like those in the show quite simply, did not socialise with anyone who didn’t look like them. I mention this because I think Reddit is similarly as about as lily-white as the internet gets. Where is the variety in privileged, white, suburban Americana? The range of topics you mentioned that we can find on Reddit in reality just reflects the views and interests of a narrow section in society. This is a complete reversal. Reddit isn’t full of diverse views and opinions; it’s water, water, everywhere nor any drop to drink! --CITIZEN LUC (discuss • contribs) 19:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that Reddit does produce a lot of content which could be described as 'fake news'. There are often many clickbait headlines in r/worldnews and r/news which present a very skewed version of a story, often biased towards a marginalised group of people or with important information conveniently missed out. It's not until you read the comments that you see how the headline has been twisted to present a particular agenda. For example, this headline very clearly portrays the oil company Shell in a negative light, whereas the top comment indicates that it's probably the best thing to do for the environment.


 * In my opinion, I think you have painted Reddit out to be a somewhat limited platform, but I believe it is full of possibilities. The subreddits I mentioned merely outline the scope of topics available, from the broad to the mundane. I don't agree with you regarding the userbase being limited to 'white and privileged' as there are a huge number of subreddits with a variety of people from different minority groups. The posts on r/Makeupaddiction for example include selfies from a range of different skin types as well as make up advice for transgender people. The dominant userbase may very well be 'white male from America', but that doesn't mean the whole of Reddit is a reflection of this. Like Greg mentioned in the first lecture 'Critical Perspectives on Digital Media', it isn't the Internet or the websites themselves that are politically biased, they are simply a tool for us to present ideas, and Reddit has a very accessible format in which to do so. -- EmilymDaniel (discuss • contribs) 17:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This might be of zero interest to you now but I wanted to comment further and clear-up some of the points I’m worried you may have misinterpreted really through my lack of a decent explanation. What you are achieving on this page deserves better than my initial comment.


 * My use of ‘fake news’ isn’t to be understood literally quite simply because news is an abstract concept; one could quite easily propose that “all news is fake news” and substantiate this remark with a critical analysis of what ‘news’ itself actually represents. Clickbait or ‘skewed’ headlines might be ‘fake news’ when this term is in the arsenal of tradition news outlets but again, this definition doesn’t suffice. The BBC produced a lot of skewed headlines in 2003 when our country illegally invaded Iraq but, when analysing this term it’s only the theoretical value that might offer something interesting to us. Whether or not the BBC produced ‘fake news’ to bolster support for our country’s role in the worst crime of the century is a matter of fact pale in comparison.


 * That case you linked about Royal Dutch Shell is to me a fascinating example. The intellectual self defense you bring to all consumption of media must be on high alert with an example like this. How else can we understand one of the largest companies in the world as something other than exploitative, environmentally destructive, a threat to all life on Earth? An ideologically rooted breakdown into what an oil company actually is lays the case out clearly. A single comment is utterly irrelevant in this regard.  Do Shell harmfully impact the natural environment; pollute our seas and make the air unfit to breathe, deplete our natural resources and lead humanity headfirst into climate chaos that risks not just the survivability of our species but also every living thing? Yes. They do. This is demonstrably the case and to whom do we owe the time for an alternative voice to be heard? The best thing Shell could do for the environment is to disappear entirely.


 * My favourite ‘fake news’ (as the term is regularly used) story was this disgusting example. If you have an understanding ideologically of either all or some of what America is, of what BLM is, of what racism is and of what the police are – then this story could never be true. And, with this understanding: “Shell does ‘best thing’ for the environment” is a headline that can also never be true.


 * Of course lots of people use reddit and I’ve previously described it as a “socially liberal” space; you’re not going to get shouted down for being gay, Muslim or Hispanic on this site. Across society there has been an obvious material improvement for that vast majority of people who aren’t white, heterosexual, male, and as stated this is tied to the dominance of socially liberal politics. However, this doesn’t translate to diversity or a wide range of possibilities as we might expect or indeed, should demand. When opportunities are seemingly opened up to all people from all backgrounds the liberal reflex is to praise the great and proper functioning of the market that provides these opportunities. On the reverse side, failures are laid squarely at the feet of the individual who didn’t take advantage of these possibilities; this must is down to some personal inadequacy. Failing to find the right subreddit for your interests must be akin to failing to find a job - all the possibilities are there you’re just not trying hard enough! I’ve laboured this point a little bit: I’m only trying to say that Reddit’s possibilities are fundamentally limited to a system that succeeds in propagating the illusion of progress over progress. Reddit is home to many different categories across the board but it’s entirely dependent on one system that seems grossly inept to deal with the  challenges we’ve seen unfold in recent months, and of which the criticism reads like a foreign language. Thanks for your time. --CITIZEN LUC (discuss • contribs) 19:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I can see what you mean about Reddit not being an ideal platform on which to present the news and that it is fundamentally limited in many ways. Reddit is very much dominated by American views and if a hotly debatable article is posted, the top comments will often be biased towards that view. Although now, not so much with the election of Trump, these very extreme nationalistic views are limited to a few sub-reddits (The_Donald springs to mind). But previously, if someone posted an article relating to gun control, there would be a number of comments about how it won't work in America, Australia is different, second amendment etc.


 * The article you linked regarding fake news is part of this ever changing media climate where we as humans have to adapt to the overload of information being thrown at us. We now have to evolve to pick apart each headline and find multiple sources to cross reference with an article in order to determine whether or not it's fake. Or, look at the comments on Reddit to find the neutral user who posts a nuanced argument so that we don't have to do the source checking ourselves. I have been guilty of seeing a headline and jumping to conclusions, only to find that it was telling an incredibly skewed version of events.


 * Thank you again for your insight, I agree that the West's involvement in many Eastern countries such as Iran, Iraq and Sri Lanka is deplorable, but I personally find Reddit the best source for finding out current events. Yes, it is flawed in many ways, but it will inevitably evolve as a news source as time goes. EmilymDaniel (discuss • contribs) 19:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

&#8593; Back to top

Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Data Trails
The question of online visibility in relation to myself as an individual is fairly subjective. In comparison to my close friends, I don’t use as many of the popular social media apps as them…yet I have more of an online presence than my Grandpa who only uses the ‘interwebs’ (as he calls it) for emailing and Amazon. There are a number of possible reasons for why I don’t use Twitter, Instagram or Snapchat regularly, despite being the target demographic.
 * 1) I am worried about becoming too addicted to them.
 * 2) I am a year older than many of my peers at University, so maybe I missed out on the collective pressure at school for everyone to have these apps.
 * 3) I own an outdated smart phone which is only capable of Facebook Messenger and basic web searching, both of which load at a glacial pace so the idea of downloading any more apps is unthinkable.

However, some of these factors are arguably flawed. My friends often use a wide variety of social media apps and have a very broad Internet presence, yet there are others who only stick to the familiar Facebook to keep in touch. It would be problematic to lump all of my contemporaries into one category of ‘regular social media consumers’ and label myself as a ‘social media luddite’. In the past, I have used various sites to communicate with others such as MSN messenger, Bebo and Yahoo Answers. While I have drifted away from them, the information I shared is still available to access online.

Facebook is the main social media platform I use to present my online identity. It shows where I have been to school, where I have worked and the pages I have liked. Yet I don’t regularly post or share content with my friends. As Adrian Athique notes in Digital Media and Society: An Introduction - “The more active users compensate for less active members of the network in maintaining a dynamic field of content that retains the interest of network members”. This suggests that my network of friends share and post regularly enough to keep me captivated with Facebook. My public activity on the most popular social media platform essentially reflects my shy and reserved personality. I have the privacy settings relatively high, but I understand that while my profile is visibile only to my friends, every photo and comment will be stored online indefinitely.

About 5 years ago, I used to regularly visit Yahoo Answers and answer various silly questions in order to boost the points on my profile. Looking back, I remember going on it every day for a long period of time and thinking how important it was to increase that meaningless number. All of the questions I have answered are still online and easy to view which shows that even if I did delete my profile, they would still be visible for everyone else to see. All of the cringeworthy thoughts of a bored teenager essentially became the property of Yahoo.

I also used to have a Snapchat account where I’d regularly share pictures of my cat to the delight of some of my followers. I deleted this account because I felt it was too addictive and decided to limit myself to Facebook and Reddit. While the pictures I shared are not easily accessible to the general public like Yahoo Answers, they were still stored on a server belonging to Snapchat. Whether or not they are still backed up on a hard drive somewhere is something I will probably never know the answer to.

My online identity these days is very much centred around Facebook private messaging and Reddit lurking with the occasional public post on both. While I tended to drift away from sites like Bebo, Twitter and Yahoo Answers, I stayed with Facebook and Reddit mainly out of habit. In many ways, it is a shame that I have become an inactive Internet user, but with the Wikibooks platform I can now express my thoughts and ideas with a more realistic knowledge of how online visibility works. As Jaron Lanier advised, “Put effort into using your personal voice outside of the wiki to help attract people who don’t yet realise that they are interested in the topics you contributed to.” Essentially saying that by being more expressive online encourages people to be more reflective offline, inviting others to discover new interests.

References

every time we wanted to ask a question). We did have a group discussion sub topic on the discussion page, but the general appearance made it hard to see new questions or answers to old questions. I often missed some of the group’s discussions for several hours which led to delayed and arguably incoherent responses. While these challenges were often problematic in advancing our research, there were a number of positive outcomes regarding collaboration. When reading other people’s Wiki Exercises, it was interesting because I could see how we all approached the questions in different ways with different insight and examples. The Wiki markup was somewhat confusing at first, but once I got to grips with the basics, it became almost second nature to format text and I found myself looking for more creative ways to display information on the page with tables and images.

This project has taught me a lot about the discourses of online privacy, especially in relation to Zizi Papacharissi's research where public and private spheres are constantly shifting to the point where there may no longer be complete privacy any more. I put out a survey on Facebook for people to fill out which asked questions about their social media usage in relation to privacy. One of the comments I got back was "Your survey is shit". It was interesting because the survey software I used SurveyMonkey) allowed me to see the IP addresses of everyone who took part. So I could pinpoint the location of the person who dissed my survey and go egg their house if I wanted to. It really highlighted the notion of online disinhibition, a concept which is very heavily focused on in the Black Mirror episode Hated in the Nation and the research of John Suler. He argues that the phenomonenon of the "online disinhibition effect" occurs because the Internet allows people to compartmentalise themselves and rationalise that their online behaviours "aren't really me at all." While the notion of privacy is such a divisive issue, this project has allowed me to reflect on the ways in which I present myself online and how I can actively contribute to this global network of information.

References , French is, German is  , etc.)
 * I looked at a couple of your edits and didn't immediately see any problems but if you have a specific example of something giving you any issues, don't hesitate to ask. Also, let me say the Wikibook that you are working on is vital. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, thank you for your reply. In the Wiki Exercise #3, I tried to link the Wikibook I'm working on (Privacy in a Digital Age) through an interlink rather than it coming up as an external link.
 * I've tried formatting it like Privacy in a Digital Age which doesn't seem to work.
 * And thank you for your comment, it's been very interesting working on this Wikibook EmilymDaniel (discuss • contribs) 21:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah. There is the problem. You should not write Privacy in a Digital Age but just Privacy in a Digital Age (like this Privacy in a Digital Age. If you are on Wikibooks, you don't need these  prefixes. If we were on Wikipedia and wanted to link here, we would have to use Privacy in a Digital Age (or use   for  ). Please let me know what else I can do for you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah, that makes sense, thank you very much, I probably should have read the help page in more detail. Thanks again for all your help!
 * EmilymDaniel (discuss • contribs) 22:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for posting this,Emily. I was wondering how to do this, also. Very useful. Littlekatie1 (discuss • contribs) 01:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, I was wondering for ages how I was formatting it wrong, but it tends to be the simple solutions to the problems like these. EmilymDaniel (discuss • contribs) 09:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Formality of language on the Wikibook

 * Hi Greg, I just have a question about the formality of the Wikibook. Should we avoid contractions and informal language? On Wikipedia, the articles tend to be neutral, are we allowed to be biased on the Wikibook? For example, could I say "The Facebook privacy settings page looks shady" or should I avoid statements like that? I checked the module guide, and it said to generate critical commentary, would that be similar to an essay format?


 * Apologies if you've already covered this in the labs, just wanted to doubled check. Thanks! EmilymDaniel (discuss • contribs) 18:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Emily - just to follow up our previous conversation. Checking for bias is a really important element in any essay-type exercises such as this. However, you can be critical - that is to say, you may included arguements supported through reference to theoretical material, as well as evidence from existing debates. In Addition, you could improve a statement like "The Facebook privacy settings page looks shady" very easily through thinking about how that might be communicated. The kinds of privacy (consumer-user choice within a framework not of their choosing)involved invite criticism. "Shady" is a little descriptive, and probably don't add to arguments that interrogate privacy issues on FB. Hope that makes sense. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That's very helpful, thanks . I'll have a read through my sections now to double check they're not too shady. EmilymDaniel (discuss • contribs) 15:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Centering quotations
Hello, sorry to bother you again, I was wondering if you could help me with centering these "Rquotes". Say I wanted to put this quote in...

...is it then possible to put it in the middle of the page? I tried swapping "left" for "centre", but I'm not sure how to then place it in the middle. Thank you! EmilymDaniel (discuss • contribs) 23:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like this template doesn't have centering functionality. Template:Cquote is made for centered quotes. (Which, by the way, we should not have two identical templates for the same functionality but that's another issue...) —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is my quotation
 * Thank you for the speedy reply Justin, that's very helpful. I had a quick look at the template help page but couldn't find anything at first glance so thought I'd check with you. Cheers again - EmilymDaniel (discuss • contribs) 00:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, you can center normal text like this Stuff . —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

&#8593; Back to top

Wiki Markup Help
This section will outline some the things I have learnt over the course of the last few weeks, special thanks to for his patience and help. There are a lot of tutorials and help pages (here's a direct link to the Wikipedia guide), but it does help having someone to demonstrate how to do something.

Linking Users
I found out through the Wikipedia Tea House how to link other users without actually pinging them (essentially removing the '@' sign). For example, rather than this format - EmilymDaniel by changing the word 'ping' to the letter 'u', it now shows up with just the username like so - u|EmilymDaniel. and will send the user a notification.

I learnt how to ping other users through my classmate who asked via the Wikibooks Reading Room. Here is a direct link to her question.

In order to link users without sending them a notification, you can use, so just exchanging 'ping' or 'u' with 'noping' instead. It will come up like this -.

Displaying Wiki Code
To display the Wiki markup on a page without the code turning into the designated format, you just need to use this format:

example

There is a more in depth explanation in the General Queries section of my user page from. The benefit of this code is that it allows users to demonstrate Wiki Markup on the page directly, rather than the user having to go into the editing section to see the code itself.

Another way of displaying code without it coming up like that on the page is this way  which presents the text like so:

This format is often more desirable as it helps the code stand out. It uses the same font as the editing box too.

Inter-linking to specific sections on pages
Again, helped with this, and there is more information in the General Queries section. The following table shows the Wiki Markup for:
 * External links
 * Links within the Wikibook
 * Links to specific sections on a Wikibooks page
 * Links to pages on Wikipedia

For more help on how to interwiki link with other Wikimedia sites (such as Wiktionary and Wikinews), this page has a very helpful table which displays the different codes for each site.

Uploading images
I made a quick guide on this page in response to a comment, but I will copy and paste it here to make it easier:
 * Go to the Wikimedia main page, then navigate to the menu on the left and under Tools click "Upload file".
 * It will then tell you what you can and can't upload to Wikimedia. Click "Next".
 * Click "Select media files to share" and upload your photo. Click "Next".
 * Select "This file is my own work", click "Next".
 * Add information about the photo in the description box, the date the work was uploaded and category.
 * Click "Next" and your photo should be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. To find it, either follow this link and search for recent files, or go to Wikimedia Commons and on the left menu under Participate, you will see a link to "Latest Files". It didn't take me too long to find my photo as it came up in the "Newbies" section.
 * In order to embed the file on your own Wikibook, open the page you want to edit and click on the photo icon. Copy and paste the filename (it should be something like File:Image One.png) into the Filename box. Adjust the size/allignment/caption and click "insert".

Just to add to this guide, you can also find the filename of the picture you have just uploaded on the 'upload complete' page.

Referencing
I had a bit of trouble with references at first, but it turned out I just hadn't closed the  at the end. Here's a link to my query on the Reading Room.

So it's just:

Followed by more text on the rest of the page, and at the end add a heading dedicated to references and simply put this code in:

Inserting tables
I found this on the Wikibooks Help page, but I will quickly go through the formula here. Copy and paste this code: 

To include more sections, add  for rows or   for columns. To include less sections, simply delete the same code. You can also insert a table via the editing panel by clicking Advanced, go to Insert and click on the table icon.

Message boxes
In order to display a message box (like the one at the top of this page), you start with:

then after typing the title of the heading, add:

If you're still having trouble (like I was for ages), you can go into the edit section of this page and copy and paste the code and change the text.

Info Boxes
In order to place an info box for an individual, copy and paste the following code and fill in each section. Note, if you don't fill in a section (for example death date), it won't come up as an empty section on the actual page. 

Image Galleries
In order to display images in a gallery format, simply copy and past the following code and change the "exampleimage.jpg" text to the filenames of the images you want instead. Note that you can also add captions. 

EmilymDaniel (discuss • contribs) 14:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Further Information about Social Media
I asked Corrie Wheeler from the social media marketing company Gumption to see if she had any insight on Facebook's marketing operations. Corrie has hands-on knowledge of Facebook advertising and she provided me with some really useful information which can be applied to the Wikibook.

She also notes other advertising strategies include the use of Facebook Pixel, which is a piece of code added to shopping websites like RedBubble and Amazon. This code remembers what pages and products you looked at and can feature them in a Facebook ad targeted specifically at you.

I've had some people say they looked at a top online, didn't complete the purchase, and then saw it everywhere afterwards (most likely, in sponsored ads and posts on their Facebook newsfeeds). It's very clever but it is funny to think that your buying behaviours have been tracked

As I am working on the Wikibook chapter about privacy, this information about how specific Facebook's advertising can target users is really beneficial. It really does highlight just how much Facebook knows. EmilymDaniel (discuss • contribs) 09:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

&#8593; Back to top

Content (weighted 20%)
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.


 * Outstanding. Your contribution to the book page gives an outstanding brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is an excellent 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 an extremely wide 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


 * Outstanding. 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. In addition to the criteria for 70%+, entries at this standard demonstrate outstanding critical understanding of the exercise and are able to produce sophisticated lines of argument, and is highly original.


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

2nd Marker Comments

Content

This entry starts with a rather short introduction, but is structured very well throughout. The idea of including a survey is very useful and backs up the points being made. Although some sections could have been improved (as stated in the marker’s comments), it is a good read. I agree with the proposed mark.

Understanding

There is outstanding evidence of critical engagement with material, well-supported arguments and relational thinking.

Engagement

I agree with the comments of the first marker: There is excellent evidence of engagement with others and creative use of the discussion pages.