User talk:Evbestie

Hello my name is evbestie. I am working on a wikibooks project as part of a team.

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

Wiki Exercise #1 - What is a good wiki?
Online Collaboration:

My first experience of social media was around a decade ago through the platform of MSN. Since then, other forms of social media have taken the reins, making applications such as MSN and bebo almost obsolete. Social media has become part of society; largely because of the online collaboration platform it provides. Facebook, Instagram and Twitter have become household names. Each provides a specific function (with Facebook covering the broadest spectrum of the three) and they have all proved to be popular. Different people discuss, collaborate and share every day regardless to whether they are friends or strangers through these platforms.

The same can be said for Wikipedia. Although it is different to social media applications, it is a platform which would not exist without online collaboration. Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia created by anyone and everyone who wishes to contribute. As the site is run by the public; the producer is the consumer and the consumer is the producer. In contrast to this point, I had never considered editing an article on Wikipedia before today. Which is strange considering I use the site regularly as a consumer and yet I clearly hadn’t thought about working on it myself – as a producer.

Personally I use Facebook and Wikipedia more regularly than the other afore mentioned applications. The main qualitative difference I have noticed in terms of engagement between Facebook and Wikipedia is the role the user plays as a consumer and producer. As I said, I was simply a consumer on Wikipedia before today. However, I have been consuming AND producing on social media since I started using MSN ten years ago. I think the primary reason for this is the contrast in formality between both platforms as well as the fact that more effort is required on the user’s part to be a producer on Wikipedia than Facebook.

As Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia it is incredibly easy to search for exactly what you want information on and in return gain specific answers. Wikipedia proves to be a greater source of information than Facebook but both sites are open to sharing ideas. This is because opposed to Facebook, Wikipedia provides information and facts with evidence. The producer must research and then use appropriate citations before submitting work on Wikipedia, whereas Facebook is less information driven and more socially driven. This creates a care free space where users post whatever they are feeling from a quick one liner to a long winded rant.

Although there is much more which could be said on the matter, I hope this makes a positive start for task 1.

Evbestie (discuss • contribs) 20:22, 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.


 * 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. 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. Additionally, just a question - is WP run by the public? Or is it run by a specific community? Certainly, it's in the public realm. But it has a CC-BY-SA license, not a public domain one. These may be cosmetic distinctions in the scheme of things, but perhaps are issues that you could investigate further in your project work?


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are especially good. I like that you have framed some of your responses as (sort of ) questions that you've posed to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!) or perhaps for building on later (I think there's plenty of potential in your contribs so far). Additionally, 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) 17:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Evbestie,

I totally agree with your idea that the main qualitative difference between Social Networks like Facebook and Wikipedia links to the manner in which we engage with these platforms. Like you stated, it seems that a user can be both consumer and producer with Facebook or Twitter with relative ease but in contrast it takes a greater effort from a user to become both on Wikipedia. This is a great starting point to show why producers on Wikipedia and Facebook behave differently. Users on Facebook have their own ideologies they rant about and experiences they share with friends, it’s more personal. On the other hand, users on Wikipedia discuss ideas with evidence or produce information with facts to back their claims, it’s more formal.

Going back to the point you suggested about specific functions, clearly platforms like Facebook or Twitter do serve a different function than Wikipedia. For example, people would not use Facebook to search for the renaissance period or information about a type of squirrel because it would be highly unlikely that they would find the information they desired. The same principle goes with Wikipedia, it’s extremely unlikely that people would use Wiki to share what they did at the weekend or plan with friends through a group discussion. They serve a different function.

Thanks. Shakeygravesbeattie (discuss • contribs) 02:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Wiki Exercise #1
Hi Evbestie, I agree with your point about the most popular social media platforms all having different uses and functions but each still having a huge number of users. I also think you make a really good point about Wikipedia and how the producer is the consumer. Although I use Wikipedia a lot it never really occurs to me that it is run by non-experts and non-professionals, and I think this would be down to the fact it is so well monitored, unlike somewhere like Twitter and Facebook, where people's views and opinions are posted without moderation and are therefore a lot more uncensored and spontaneous, which you mentioned. This concept also links to your next idea about it being easier to contribute to a social media platform than Wikipedia and I agree entirely, it has taken me a lot longer to navigate where and how to post this reply, and I imagine if I was to reply to you on Facebook, it wouldn't just be my experience of the site that would make it faster, but the simplicity and easy accessibility of it.

Cathym97 (discuss • contribs) 10:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Evbestie
There are many good points made about the producer and consumer on various media sites, and you show a promising understanding of the roles and relationships we take on and take part in when using online media sites.

I think it could be argued that the formality of Wikipedia can, in a way, be seen as informal because of the collaborative efforts to create a page/ site and/ or discussion. As you said, 'it is a platform which would not exist without online collaboration', but in almost all forms of collaborations, there are bound to be disagreements (arguments, to be more realistic). Due to the different formatting of the site people would write with more tact but, essentially, would still throw insults and difference of opinions at each other though a discussion. Also as Wiki*edia is a collaboration from people around the world, there is potential for getting into a formalised dispute with a complete stranger, which I find entertaining, but also potentially frightening as you don't actually know how much they know about you or what the original topic of argument is.

I also find it interesting that you use Wikipedia a lot because I do not usually use it. During my High School years one of my teachers told a story how he had set a homework assignment for his class about the pope. When it was handed back and he was marking it, one of his pupils had written that the pope was a Muslim...guess what he had edited?

I agree that Wikipedia is a better source of information than sites like Facebook because it is infinitely easier to find something specific, but tend not to trust it, due to the ease of editing... professional or not.

As time goes on I am sure we will both have more to say on the differences of both platforms

SinaOhlandt (discuss • contribs) 00:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Data Trails
My visibility online exists primarily through social media. I disclose personal information about myself online mainly through Facebook. My age, gender, school I attended, university I attend, relationship status, family members, as well as photos of myself and others are all online. Although I keep my privacy settings to only reveal this information with my ‘Facebook friends’ I understand that my information is not entirely private or secure.

The reason for my privacy settings is for online safety. I do not see why strangers should need or want to see my personal information and I do not want to feel intruded upon. My Facebook profile has been hacked a couple of times and I have gained ‘friends’ who are most definitely not my friends. As a result of this I had to change my password. I also browsed through my Facebook friends and realised I have almost 1000. So although my privacy settings keep my information limited to these people, I must question the security of this. For nobody really has 1000 close friends, would I declare personal information to all of these people if I met them in person rather than online? Doubtfully.

Besides Facebook, I also have a Snapchat and Instagram account. I am not entirely sure why but I feel more secure on these sites. I have a private Instagram account and a silly Snapchat username and so unlike Facebook, most people I contact through these platforms I know personally and would consider to be my friends. Whilst I know of everyone I am friends with on Facebook it is much easier to search and locate people which I think is why I have so many contacts. In addition to this, although my Facebook profile is ‘private’, users are still able to see some of my information before I accept their friend request. Whereas, my Instagram account only shows a little picture and my name and Snapchat does not show anything.

I think it is important to be aware of your online visibility and take care in deciding what information you want to be available.

This week’s theme of visibility and data trails relates to each chapter of the Wikibook Project. As each group’s specific chapter has not been assigned yet, I cannot discuss the relationship between visibility and data trails with future content. However, I can state that visibility is an important aspect of showing engagement with the project as a whole. Data trails (wiki contribs) can easily be viewed and noted which shows the user’s visibility online and therefore reflects their engagement. This is incredibly important especially as part of this module as engagement is an integral part of assessment.

Evbestie (discuss • contribs) 09:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Evbestie. Would you feel more comfortable about your Facebook/Snapchat/Instagram experience if you could see who was viewing, or attempting to view, your profile? FionaThacker (discuss • contribs) 09:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your response! Maybe, but I'm not sure. As they say, 'ignorance is bliss'. Having that kind of knowledge may be a bit overwhelming.

Evbestie (discuss • contribs) 17:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Evbestie, I totally agree with your argument about sharing personal information with strangers, I dislike the idea of a stranger going through my photos with friends and family so I normally set my privacy settings to the highest protection. I understand that in order to find friends on Facebook, you need to at least put some information about yourself online but allowing strangers to look at this personal information seems bizarre. You mentioned that you were once hacked on Facebook, did this experience affect the way you look at privacy online? I recently read an article about a man who experienced identity theft, his picture and name appeared on various dating websites and were used to attract women. This story shows how shockingly easy it is for a stranger to steal your identity online so it is important to be aware of your privacy settings when using social media. I also had many many friends on Facebook who I did not consider to be my friends in the real world, I went through a phase of unfriending a lot of users because like you stated I would not share my personal information in person so why should I share it online with them. I felt like it was important to have as many friends on Facebook when I was younger, I guess it showed that I was being social. Like you, I feel much more secure on Instagram and snapchat because I tend to interact with a close group of friends, I’m much more comfortable in those situations where you completely trust and know the person you interact with. Thanks.Shakeygravesbeattie (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your thoughtful response! Being hacked did affect my perspective of online privacy (which is one of the reasons I wanted to look into this topic as part of the Wikibook Project). I did not have as serious an experience to the link you have attached, but you have demonstrated just how easy it for online data to be manipulated. Thank you for bringing this article to my attention :)

When I was younger EVERYBODY 'added' each other on social media and so I feel like it is probably time I had a 'clear out' of who my friends are on social media - primarily on Facebook. I agree, knowing and trusting who you are interacting with online definitely gives a sense of security.

Evbestie (discuss • contribs) 17:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload
--Evbestie (discuss • contribs) 09:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Given that there is more information than I could possibly fathom online, it is important to be capable of understanding and recognising the source. This is obviously a more relaxed process if the user is browsing out of personal interest, but when using the internet for academic purposes, it is vital to be aware. With the abundance of information, it is also easy to become distracted or led off course by other things.

I would not say that I have “come to deal with it” in any sort of way, it's just the way it is. As there is so much information, it is easy to go off topic perhaps without even realising. However, there is more than likely to be information on the specific thing you were searching for. So whenever I find myself being veered off course I will start a new search with a more defined request of what it is exactly that I am looking for. If you are aware, then the overload of information can work for you, not against.

The contributing factors which form my decision on what information to utilise are as follows: the source, and consequently the reliability of the source, the relevance of the subject, and whether or not it provokes thought or interests me. Another way I eliminate irrelevant information is by using different places to search. For example, using a search engine such as Google or Bing will give an overwhelming amount of information. It will also be information of different kinds from blog posts, newspaper articles, Wikipedia reviews as well as journal articles and other academic texts. Having such a wide array of information can be stifling and difficult to know where to begin. When looking for a text for academic purposes, I turn to the multiple options provided on my University Portal - Succeed. This allows me to search for the key terms as usual, but also specifically select that I would like a journal article and - depending on what I was writing - I could set a year range which would limit the result to academic journals from 2005 onwards (for example).

Moving on to discuss the workflow of this module:

This module has a great workflow, but the way in which the course has been constructed makes it incredibly easy to work with. Having an exercise due every week sets a target which I can stick to and it also teaches the skills in advance which are needed for the Wiki Project. As the project is due next week, my entire group are now all focussed and prepared. We have decided on our chapter, main topic and sub topics and are all willing to work together to achieve the best grade possible. This will improve our workflow as we encourage each other to work hard as we exchange tips and advice. We are all looking forward to the final result.

Evbestie (discuss • contribs) 10:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Evbestie (discuss • contribs) 10:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Evbestie (discuss • contribs) 10:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that for academic research and studies we have to be aware of the sources of original information, but I sometimes find it just as hard to properly get the right or appropriate information because of the abundance of texts and articles available. It was only recently that I found a great way to help make this easier, which is through Google Scholar... something I hadn’t even known was a thing until I used an article for an assessment last year. I won’t say it’s as good as Succeed, because our lecturers will put relevant reading lists which we can help ourselves to – but there are a lot of good and varied sources which are just as available as the ones on Succeed.

Have you ever had it that, no matter what you type in a search engine, you just can’t seem to find what you’re looking for? I know I have, and it was infuriating at the time... I ended up leaving it for the day, then writing something completely different in the hopes that I would find what I was looking for. It is too easy to veer off course, but sometimes the information you find is so interesting, and so off topic that you don’t realise it till you look at the time and somehow it’s time for dinner, and you’ve achieved nothing relevant to what you set out to do. I find it fascinating that even then with all the information out there, relevant to what we set out to do or not, there are times we only scratch the surface of the information available, but still don’t realise it.

I have to agree that the workflow is good, and that the weekly deadlines are not nearly as stressful as originally thought. And I’m glad to hear that you’re looking forward to the Wiki Project – so am I and I’m sure that the final result will be great.

SinaOhlandt (discuss • contribs) 21:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
The collaborative nature of the Wiki process created an enjoyable, challenging and unique learning experience. As it was an online group project, I would log in daily to check any updates and calculate what was needed to do next. The Wiki platform was new and unfamiliar to most the group and so at the beginning of the project a lot of time was spent working out how to utilise the different functions on the site. My group contributed to the chapter Privacy in a Digital Age within the Wikibook Living in a Connected World. This chapter had the largest number of contributors (17) and so time was spent organising what was going to be written and by whom on the discussion page. Although this took several days to organise, it was vitally important to the task. This process was simplified by discussing with the rest of my group in person - especially within the Wiki labs. My group of 5 agreed on a topic and then we shared this with the rest of the group on the online discussion page. Doing this in person made it much easier to have a discussion and simplified the process as we were all in agreement before we started working on the Wiki platform. The downside of this is that there is no record of this engagement. Had we had this discussion on the Wiki discussion page our ‘contribs’ would prove our engagement. We also created a group chat on Facebook messenger for ease of communication. Again, our engagement would not have been recorded. We did not use the group chat as much as expected because over time the Wiki became easier to navigate and collaborate on.

The Wiki proved excellent for sharing links, feedback, tips and resources between classmates. The specificity of the task ensured that it was easy to stay focussed and on track, and therefore engagement with the module was willingly maintained. Writing academic work for my peers to read was daunting. Even in previous Wiki exercises – it was daunting. However, the respondents have been so supportive. Even when criticizing or presenting a suggestion on how a section could be improved, it always proved helpful and beneficial within this environment.

Having the opportunity to apply the principles which have been discussed in the module such as sharing, debating and discussing online has been an excellent learning curve. Personally, I have gained a much greater understanding of the effects of the digital age throughout the Wiki tasks and the module in general.

The critical concept of being “always-on” is evident here. As the Wiki Exercises are almost complete I have been reflecting over the project. Every week, each member of the class wrote an entry to their Wiki page / a Wikibook. This online submission resulting in online interaction changed the way the class engaged with each other not only online but in person.

The term always-on defines the state of constant online connectivity. Danah Boyd articulates what it means to be always-on in a chapter of the book The Social Media Reader. She illustrates that she is always connected to the network, hence she is always-on. The internet is used to communicate and query as well as providing a platform for social interaction. This concept accurately reflects the notion of collaborative knowledge building and the peer review process which are primary characteristics of Wikibooks. Each contributor maintained close contact with the Wikibook and being online to support and critique the abundance of work and suggestions. As the Wikibook platform is an academic site, it has very different qualities to social media sites. Although entries are more academic and formal there is still a strong aspect of community which is created through online interaction. Overall, this task has proved to be always-on. It has also highlighted how I am always-on in everyday life.

To conclude, this task has proved to be very different to any other University work I have previously completed. It has been challenging but interesting as it has allowed me to reflect on how I consume and produce data. The greatest mistake I made was how I signed my work on the Wikibook. I spent almost a week contributing and signing on the main page and every time I logged in my signature had been removed. At first I was frustrated and confused. I then realised that the user is not supposed to sign the main page but instead note their contribution on the discussion page and sign there. I am slightly worried that my engagement might be overlooked and so if I was doing this task again in the future, or advising others who are doing this task, I would emphasise the importance of this point.

I thoroughly enjoyed this project, and I plan to remain being always-on!

Evbestie (discuss • contribs) 11:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Evbestie (discuss • contribs) 10:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Evbestie (discuss • contribs) 10:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Evbestie (discuss • contribs) 10:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Evbestie (discuss • contribs) 10:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Evbestie (discuss • contribs) 10:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I agree I also started to log on daily to wikibooks often to check and updates and to see if I had any notifications, much like i would facebook. Did you find yourself logging on to wikibooks just to check notifications out of curiosity or would you only go on to be productive and contribute to your project? It's interesting reading about how your group organised itself in a group of 17 people as my group only had 7, however it seems that we went about organising our project in a similar fashion. I feel like the face to face meetings were very important for my group and were a necessity, do you feel the same way or do you think the project could be carried out completely online? My group tried to communicate on our wikibook discussion page, but as we were all quite inexperienced using wikibooks and didn't know how to format it properly so it very quickly became too messy to navigate through, so we resorted to facebook perhaps leading to loosing marks on our engagement levels. I was also a little unsure about writing academically for an audience and it did seem a quite daunting, but after a while I began to enjoy it and liked contributing to peoples discussion pages and leaving comments. I also found it to be very beneficial as the other students helped expand points that I had made and shed light on areas where I was a little unsure of. Do you feel you will continue to be an active wiki contributor? Jackhand1 (discuss • contribs) 17:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response!

I would log in both to check any notifications and to contribute to the project.

I would say that meeting face to face was a necessity for my group of 5 because it made assigning roles was made easier as we could evaluate each others knowledge. In contrast to this, it did not seem important for all 17 of us to meet in person. Discussing on the Wiki platform proved to be perfectly practical for this.

I agree that sharing our work has been very beneficial. I am not sure if I will continue to be an active wiki contributor, do you think you will?

Evbestie (discuss • contribs) 22:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello!

I agree that the Wiki project was at first a daunting task, but that we all managed to stay on track because of how specific it was. The fact that it was a more engaging and practical form of assessment made it all the more challenging and interesting to research and study, which made the overall experience really fun.

I also agree that the ‘always on’ concept is very clear as, even for those of us who try to be less reliant on the internet and social media sites, we had to make the effort to check and update the information we provided for both our personal discussion pages, as well as the discussion page for the final project, which was due last week. After having researched for our topic, do you think you perceive the internet slightly differently, now that you know that you are ‘always on’ and how visible you are? I do, and although having wanted to be slightly less visible, or ‘on’ beforehand after having researched and learned more, I want to make a more valiant effort to do so because some of the information I found was far from what I was expecting.

If I were you, I wouldn’t worry too much about the signing off in the project because it was a simple enough mistake to do as I almost did that too to start off with. The main thing is that you managed to successfully contribute to the page and discussion, and that regardless of whether your contributions were signed off again or not, your contributions will still be seen either way. SinaOhlandt (discuss • contribs) 11:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Evbestie,

I totally agree with you about how challenging the Wiki project could sometimes be because of the nature of collaborating through the internet. Being in the largest group as well, I found it difficult at times to follow and understand the information other users had contributed. However, I also believe that we managed to overcome this obstacle and made a valiant contribution to the Wikibook. Do you think being part of a smaller group would have been more effective? It’s great that you mentioned Danah Boyd’s theory of “Always on” because the very nature of this project demanded us to be online to engage with other users. It was compulsory for us to be connected at all times to keep updated with our groups additions to the project and to create additions ourselves. I cannot begin to imagine how difficult it would have been if we were tasked to recreate the same project in person rather than using Wikibook. Imagine 17 people trying to contribute their ideas and gathered material into one physical book at the same time, it would be a shambles. If facing a similar task but with a group of 5 for example, would you prefer to use the Wikibook format (a main final page and a discussion page) and engage with the group online or create a physical book/poster meeting with the group in person?

Thanks Shakeygravesbeattie (discuss • contribs) 16:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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.


 * 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


 * 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.


 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, featuring discriminating command of a good range of relevant materials and analyses
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material to a fairly wide degree
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument through judgement relating to key issues, concepts or procedures
 * evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position);
 * evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections);
 * clear evidence of independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content suggests deficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * discernible lack of engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Lacking in reflexive and creative use of discussion pages