User talk:Emmamackison

Hi I'm Emma, I have created this for the purpose of an educational university project. My intention is to use the space to gain insight and gather knowledge.Emmamackison (discuss • contribs) 13:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: What Makes a Good Wiki?
Both Wikipedia and social media platforms rely on a constant stream of content from users to stay active and up to date. However the type of content that is produced on both of these forums by these users varies greatly in many ways. The way in which users engage with other people and content are very different.

This can be seen through the language and quality of content. A user may update their social media in an informal way ( using text speech, abbreviations, slang) whereas Wikipedia relies on accurate content which makes sense to every user. Wikipedia content has to be factual and non bias whereas many people find that their social media platforms are a great way to express their own views more freely. Social media is a more common place to find debates with less definitive answers and more about the opinion of the individual.

Another difference between social media and Wikipedia is the instant reaction social media content receives. Photos, a status or a comment can be seen instantly through notifications and therefore users can receive instant gratification or often criticism. Social media platforms are live and cannot be changed or taken back once content is shared whereas Wikipedia content can be edited and amended by other users.

Social media platforms have character counts and limits which could affect the quality of the content, whereas Wikipedia does not have this and aims to be a informative as possible. Ultimately the two have different purposes, one aimed at providing factual, regulated, non biased information while the other provides a platform for users to freely produce content as well a place to engage with other people.

Both platforms invite a different audience to engage with them, younger people are more likely to exchange and discuss with one another on social media platforms, as they are specifically tailored to a younger generation and do not require factual content. Wikipedia is not aimed at younger people like social media is and therefore may not appeal to them as much. This influences the type of user who is producing content.Emmamackison (discuss • contribs) 22:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wiki Exercise #1


Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is in relation to Understanding and Engagement elements, it should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band overall.


 * Good. Among other things, good entries will make a clear point in a clear way. They will relate concepts to original examples in a straightforward fashion. They will make effective use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons). They may also demonstrate a broader understanding of the module's themes and concerns, and are likely to show evidence of reading and thinking about the subject material. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.


 * This post is at the lower end of this grade band, so there’s clearly room for improvement here. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and (especially for this, perhaps, the Understanding) criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets. Less instrumentally, and more in relation to this particular post, making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would go a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, as you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this will make a considerable difference. Your comment that specifically tailored to a younger generation and do not require factual content ... well, is that not a really problematic statement, with a contradiction? I'm not saying you are incorrect (although take care not to assert claims without supporting evidence to draw from), but I do think that this is a really interesting way of putting things, because the implication is that the younger generation (defined as? again, careful) don't require facts. It sounds vaguely as though I'm attacking the "younger generation" here, whereas actually, this is something that can be inferred from your post. What I'm therefore suggesting is that you pay attention to phrasing and detail, to prevent miscomunicating your ideas.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – none undertaken. This would effectively halve your mark, which is a shame.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 14:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I do agree with you when you say that Wikipedia is not aimed at the younger generation, but only to a certain extent. I would argue that the site is not aimed at the younger generation in terms of content production, but is in terms of content consumption. I wrote in response to another member of the class about how I have been using Wikipedia as a platform to obtain information since a primary school age, thus I would say that Wikipedia is open to people as young 7 or 8. Furthermore, as a current member of the younger generation, I still use Wikipedia to consume content, and I presume you do too. Therefore, in terms of content consumption, I would argue that Wikipedia is aimed at people of all ages who know how to navigate the Web. Furthermore, the site is usually nearer the top of the results page whenever you type in the name of a film or politician or country etc, which to me again suggests that the site is popular among people of all ages as I presume the links nearer the top of the results page get the most hits, but they may just appear at the top due to some form of algorithm. However, I do agree with you when you talk about social media being more relaxed compared to Wikipedia in its use of language and the general content that is produced. I also liked your point about the two platforms having different purposes, I think that their similar yet distinctive purposes are what attracts a certain group of people to produce content on Wikipedia over social media sites. Perhaps the more formal use of language and ingrained factual nature of Wikipedia creates an environment where people feel they will have a more intellectual collaborative discussion, than on social networking sites. CaitlinCarbury (discuss • contribs) 21:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Emma, I found your post very interesting as it had many points that I agree with. Social media content produced does tend to be a lot more informal in its language compared to content produced here and hence why people engage with it differently and why answers on social media are not as definitive as answers you will find here on Wikipedia whether they are correct or not. I believe that the way photos and posts on social medium like Facebook are instant and can receive responses very quickly is another reason why people tend to engage with it more as Wikipedia is a lot less obvious when it comes to showing who has viewed your post and to what extent they agree/disagree with it. I definitely agree with your point that a younger crowd will be more likely to use wikipedia as opposed to an older crowd using Wikipedia because it is a lot more complex and takes time to understand fully how to navigate through it. Wikipedia's intentions I agree are focused on providing factual information and less focused on 'entertaining' a feed of people like Facebook and Twitter. Tamoloriiii (discuss • contribs) 18:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visability and Data Trails
As a young person and a student I would consider myself very visible online. I am constantly using social media to keep up with friends, to attend university and social events and so on. I, like most of the people my age, use Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram to present myself online. These social media platforms are part of my everyday and are constantly checked, updated and often edited.

All of my social media platforms are on the private setting as they have always been because I have always considered it important to have the power to accept people to look at your life essentially. My Facebook is a place where I have information on my school, where I go to university, places I have been and I would consider these things very private. However, you could say that even with the privacy setting on, information is still passed around a large number of people. I know that I have friends on Facebook that I have only met once or is a friend of a friend and I am sure that there are even people I barely now at all. I often ask why it is we have so many friends on Facebook? There is so much personal information on social media platforms such as this and we consider ourselves less visible if we keep our accounts private but still have over 1000 "friends" that's are seeing the information anyway.

For my Snapchat, I only accept people who I know well enough to be able to trust with personal content. Snapchat is constantly getting updated and often it is daily. That is the reason why I am more strict with who I choose to accept. Snapchat can be a place to update people on what youre doing and where you are live. Often people have seen the content before you yourself have had time to go back and check what you have uploaded. Snapchat's that are sent can be set to a maximum of 10 seconds and then they are gone. This may encourage people to send things they may not have sent knowing they are permanently there. Snapchat still allows the receiver to screenshot so there is still a way to preserve snapshot's that are sent. I have also found that Google knows a lot about my life by suggesting things to me when I am using it. It knows the pages and sites I have been on, the places I have been and is able to suggest similar places just from his knowledge.

Do we really know how visible we are online? Could we really say just what people see and what we have allowed to be seen? It is really hard to keep track, especially for those who have several social media platforms. My username on all social media platforms is my name, therefore all it takes is for someone to type it into a search bar to find me, regardless of my privacy settings. Even with these settings in place, people with the know-how can find you with a few clicks of a button.Emmamackison (discuss • contribs) 12:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I too, Emma, am also very active in my use of social media sites, particularly when it comes to updating things I have done and events I have gone to as well as sharing information about them. I also made a similar remark that even though I try my best to keep my information private by using the privacy settings available to me, I am aware that things can be passed around easily from person to person. I think because I’ve used social media from a young age I’ve maybe added people on my social media sites that I don’t speak to today. I’ve also wondered why I had so many friends on social media when I definitely don’t have that many in the real world, and I often share information about myself without taking this into account.

It’s a good point to make that people can screenshot the snaps you send to them and although you get a notification for this there isn’t much you can do; and I feel like this is always something on my mind whenever I send a snap or post a snapstory. Other users have also mentioned their discomfort with google seeming to know a lot of information about us that we don’t remember authorising, and it’s also something that to me feels a bit intrusive. Does this bother you or do you feel it is harmless?

I personally don't know how visible I am online either, and I also think it's something which is very difficult to track due to most of my social media sites being years old. I too think that anyone with the knowledge to do and the will to do so could find out much more information about me than I would like to imagine. Do you think it would be worth taking the time to try delete old information we had posted about ourselves online or to change our usernames or do you think this is already past the point? especially when we consider that often the companies themselves store our information. GemmaCampbell (discuss • contribs) 17:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Bombardment of irrelevance
It's without question that there is no getting away from the constant stream of content on the internet. By searching for something, you are bombarded with millions of results with most having very little to do with your search. People wonder how we, as students, manage to get distracted and end up somewhere irrelevant. Websites are full of links and related pages that make it hard to stay focused the task at hand. I often get easily distracted when trying to focus my mind on something. Even if the distracting content is related I often find that each one leads me to another and I become further and further away from the topic.

Coping with the distractions
Often the best way to really get away from the overload of content is to avoid searching the internet. Doesn't really sound feasible when you're in desperate need of information. Basically there is no getting away from it. You cannot exactly ask people to come off of their phones. The more you search, the deeper down the rabbit hole you go, getting further and further away from where you started. As well as this, messages constantly pop up on your phone, especially when you have a lot of social media apps. Facebook has to be one of the worst apps for leading you away from work, there is a notification for everything, most of which doesn't even concern you.

The Wikibook Project
Being part of the Wikibook project I have looked at how to organise things so that people are led instantly from one thing to another without distracting content that would distract them from the topic. We have put a lot of effort in to making sure people are well informed on the direction of the content and lead them in a way that stimulates their interest rather than lead them astray on a tangent. Emmamackison (discuss • contribs) 14:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
Before starting the Wikiboook project, I did use the internet a lot for only recreational use, other than work for university of course. I honestly thought the Wikipedia forum was just fact pages made up by random people, not really knowing there was a whole world of discussion and collaborative books and projects behind all that. I did not even know that Wikibooks existed. I'm glad I took part in this project because I am always interested in other ways to explore the internet. I have always enjoyed writing from a more exploratory point of view and I think Wikibooks has allowed me to do so, it has sort of a blog vibe to it which I enjoy very much. Wikibooks has more of relaxed feel to the work rather than writing a long essay.

At first it was a rather intimidating thought, writing work that others could see, comment and edit but there are a lot of benefits to this as well. I feel that it was successful in terms of sharing ideas and links, the format to do this is simple enough that people are able to easily share information they find that is useful to others, not just in their groups but to everyone. I think the way in which everyone comments and engages with one another is a good way to improve your own work and Wikibooks allows you to do this. It was interesting to read other people's ideas and reflect on your own, to expand your own ideas.

The topics covered were very interesting. I especially enjoyed looking at privacy on the internet and how often we cannot say for sure how visible we are online. I touched on a point in one of the exercises where I pointed out that people don't seem to question their online visibility and I think this is a very important point. Why don't more people bother to keep personal information private? I found myself logging on to Facebook at several points during this project and looking at my privacy settings just to make sure everything was the way I thought it was. A few days later I found that someone, who was not my friend, nor had any connect to me or any of my friends or relatives, had shared a previous profile photo of mine. This was confusing as I thought my photos were private but it just shows that some of us still do not fully understand how these things work.

In terms of a platform for discussion, Wikibooks proved challenging in getting people to engage. Unlike messenger apps, such as Facebook, you cannot see when other members of your group have seen your comments, if at all. Personally I found it hard to separate and follow conversation on the discussion page as comments and discussion were lost in an abyss of words, it took a long time to sift through it and find what I was looking for.Emmamackison (discuss • contribs) 14:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Emma, I enjoyed reading your reflective account of this Wikibook Project. After completing the project, do you think that Wikibooks is something you could make use of for your future studies? If not, what do you think would have to change on the platform to enable it to be a good tool for University students? I like that you commented on the collaborative nature of Wiki in your reflective account. Did you feel like your group were able to communicate well and work as a strong team for the group project? I understand your statement about the comments on Wikibooks. I found it quite overwhelming at some points and just felt like I was staring at a screen of words, rather than comments. After I got used to the Wiki platform, I got used to it though.Misslouisepark (discuss • contribs) 16:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Louise, thanks for your comment. I do think that I would use Wikibooks in the future. I think it is one of those things that once you get the hang of it, it can a very useful resource. I did find that my group worked well together however maybe a face to face meeting would have benefitted us as I always find discussion better when it is to someone in real life. It is hard to say how to adapt something like this to university students specifically, however it would be nice to have a bit of a simpler layout for discussion and also some way to have notifications on your phone when someone mentions you or comments. I found that I was constantly having to log on to find out if I had missed anything. I'm not sure if this could be a thing or if it already is...hmm maybe I will investigate.Emmamackison (discuss • contribs) 21:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Emma, I also never considered I would ever be a contributor on any wiki sites as a saw this as something for a select few but this was before wikibooks offered the opportunity. I wasn’t even aware wikibooks existed before this project either in fact and have also found it be a good experience in allowing me to utilise the internet in a new way. I like your point about wiki books seeming almost blog-like and I agree as I feel it is a space where we can write things we normally wouldn’t on our social medias. I also agree, particularly when it comes to the wikibook project that the collaborative method online was in some ways a good thing in allowing us to interact and contribute with people to make something together as a group. I like that you said you felt intimidated at first by the thought that anyone could see what we write or post as I was also feeling this way. With wikibooks being a space where anyone can contribute and respond to my posts it was a bit intimidating to begin with as I was unaware of what to expect. It’s also a good point, and I’ve made similar points, that seeing others opinions and thoughts on our weekly topics enabled me to gain a broader understanding on a specific theory or topic whilst relating it through others experiences contextually. I agree with you point that wikibooks can be a challenging site to try to keep a flowing communication with someone unlike on social medias with their quick messaging systems. As well as this, I also have to agree with your point about finding the text format quite difficult to navigate in order to formulate responses etc. Overall, do you feel the wikibook project then was the best way to gain knowledge of the theories and topics we covered in lectures?GemmaCampbell (discuss • contribs) 23:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)
The introductory remarks at the beginning of this chapter are quite visual and alert the reader to the image of a doubling – a theme which is implied throughout the chapter in terms of information flows and how they are regulated through both connectivity and user behaviour. Very interesting, and sets up the narrative of the chapter as a whole.

This narrativising work is extended into the accounts of Chomsky, Adorno and others – a well written and concise summary of each approach and some critical commentary included. I think that more could be made of making interwiki links to various relevant sections in this, and other, chapters (especially, perhaps, chapters on News, Evidence and Memory in Online Communications, the section on private sphere linking to Privacy in a Digital Age, or certainly there are whole sections in the Digital Labour chapter that are of immediate relevance here.) The narrativisation is excellent on the section involving the work of Pariser, and extending the Five Filters to Five Data Points.

Some really useful work on personalisation, and excellent coverage of information flows. These sections feature evidence of wider reading and research, as references to specific peer-reviewed materials to substantiate the argument. The discussion of data trails is good – however, it doesn’t attain the same level of criticality as these other examples (although some references to academic sources are used). This section is also an example where the text-heavy nature means that it’s fairly heavy going to read. Use of wiki commons images to illustrate the argument would help to not only break up the text, but to make more of the platform’s functionality.

Media is already a plural term.

Some more joined-up thinking could have extended and beefed up the arguments in relation to the section on “Control over what we see”. There’s a subsection on “filter bubbles” here which seems to repeat already-mentioned material. A wikilink to other parts of the chapter where this is already discussed would probably have done just as well as these few sentences, which sort of appear as an anomaly in this section.

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, although my feeling is that this could have been extended significantly, especially through looking at what other chapters were writing about, and making the connections between there and the arguments here more explicit. Some of the formatting seems to go awry in the middle, so a little more joined-up thinking and a little more effort in presentation there would have been useful.


 * Satisfactory. Your contribution to the book page gives a satisfactory brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a fair range of concepts associated with your subject, and an effort to deliver critical definitions. There is evidence that you draw from relevant literature and scholarship, however your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is slightly lost, perhaps due to a variable depth of understanding the subject matter or over reliance on rote learning. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a somewhat circumscribed 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%)

 * 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