User talk:FionaThacker

Hello, my name is Fiona and I am working on an educational class project as part of a team FionaThacker (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiExercise#1 What is a Good Wiki?
I have never taken full advantage of social media platforms, primarily because I do not fully understand them or how they are meant to be used - I always miss additional features and tricks to massively enhance my experience as a consumer. Approaching Wikipedia as more than a consumer is a terrifying experience, as I have never approached any platform as more than just a consumer of the most basic information.

Marker’s Feedback on Wiki Exercise #1


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


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


 * This post is at the lower end of this grade band, so there’s clearly room for improvement here. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and (especially for this, perhaps, the Understanding) criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets. Less instrumentally, and more in relation to this particular post, making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would go a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, as you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this will make a considerable difference.


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 18:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I totally understand what you mean, and I totally agree. Wiki in particular where you have lots of keyboard shortcuts in order to sign in or out, and what one is meant to do isn't as clearly defined as it might be more so on Facebook or Twitter. For example, it would be a whole lot easier for me to Facebook message you rather than send you a message through Wiki. I feel like it is much more easier to contribute to social media in regards to Facebook- setting up a profile picture, uploading a status, or anything similar and you can be counted as to having contributed to the website, almost effortlessly. However compared to Wiki the sight is more academic for starters, with the information you upload needing to be correct and checked.Hgfoster (discuss • contribs) 03:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiExercise#2 Visibility and Data Trails
Undoubtedly, I am more visible online than I would like to be. I don’t use much in the way of social media, and the social media I do use, I would say I use infrequently to moderately. However, all my social media accounts use my full name, are fairly accessible and are open to the public – my privacy settings on these accounts have been proven to be discomfortingly relaxed on multiple occasions. Ideally, information about me would only concern the people who actually know me, but I do believe that, once information is online, it is beyond the bounds of our control.

On the one hand, this is marvellous, fantastic and a necessity – once the information is on the internet it is free and accessible to all, anyone can fact-check, reference and evidence this information. On the other hand, it does concern me that everything I have ever thoughtlessly shared, carelessly liked, recklessly written or absent-mindedly uploaded is now documented in the internet history of my life, which isn’t at all representative of the reality of my life, but does grant anyone who would want to look an insight that I maybe would not allow them otherwise. Ultimately, I feel there is no demand, or even desire, for my consent or decision-making as far as the information about me is concerned, particularly in regards to the people who view it.

I once had someone on Tinder find me on Facebook with my first name and place of work. Ever so kindly, they admitted that they had done this and then proceeded to comment extensively on my profile pictures. I found this outstandingly creepy, not just because they had managed this, but because someone could manage this and I felt like I had let them. I felt guilty for my privacy settings being too relaxed and the information too easy to source.

I don’t want to be hidden online, I don’t feel that there’s much need for it – I have nothing to be ashamed of. I feel that my Facebook profile is respectable enough for employers and my boyfriend’s parents. However, I would like the information to only be accessible to those I would welcome to the information in real life too. Perhaps, this is my fault. I shouldn’t use my full name on every platform, I shouldn’t make the information too easy to access and amalgamate so that anyone, ever, could construct an assumed version of who I am. I can’t blame people for being too computer savvy that they can construct this first impressions, even though it’s not a real first impression.

On Facebook, I regularly attend events at nightclubs – I would appear to be fanatical about nightclubs and DJs as I attend events two or three times a week. The reality is that I work at a nightclub and click ‘attend’ on these events to boost the attendance number on social media. The reality is that I do not like nightclubs, but that’s not a conclusion you would draw from my Facebook.

I know my visibility online is greater than I would like. However, my visibility as an actual, multi-faceted and dimensioned human being is not that great. As with the person on Tinder, or anyone, you can view my profiles and garner basic information that I would probably share with you in a general conversation, but the reality is different. I am unsure how visible reality is online.

FionaThacker (discuss • contribs) 11:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fiona, I've also had a similar job where the owner has asked his employees to share his promotional posts on Facebook. The boss always frames it as "It would be much appreciated if all members of staff could share this post as it means more customers, therefore more shifts". In that way, he's trying to boost the visibility of his business, but because Facebook is a very personal profile, it seems almost weird to share something that you're forced to unless you really love your job. Like you mentioned, there is a difference between how you present yourself online and what the reality actually is. --EmilymDaniel (discuss • contribs) 17:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Emily. Do you think it's unreasonable for employers to ask their employees to use their personal social medias for business purposes? FionaThacker (discuss • contribs) 09:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it depends on the way they do it. My employer is sometimes a bit aggressive in the way he asks everyone to share the business posts. For example, when he asked everyone to share an upcoming event and saw that only 2 people had done so, he posted another comment saying how disappointed he was in his employees and basically guilt tripped everyone into sharing it. The way employees respond also depends on the way they are treated offline as well. --EmilymDaniel (discuss • contribs) 10:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@FionaThacker Hello Fiona! I fully agree with you that the privacy settings on some social media sites are unbelievably relaxed, but I respect the fact that you are unashamed of the things you post, and I hopefully share this when I myself am online on social networking sites. I just find it unsettling that despite what we post and how we post it, we will still be monitored and the privacy settings we use are pretty much useless. Like your encounter with the person from Tinder, while I was finding a way to write my response to how visible I am online, I managed to find a record of my previous address due to an Electoral Roll which had been uploaded online. I was stunned at how easy it was to find me, or at least where I used to live. I know it is not social media related, but my personal address is something I do not share, especially on social media.

It is annoying how easy it is to forget that anyone can find us online and usually assume what type of people we are at a single glance, but as modern technology evolves the lines between reality and life online will only become more and more blurred. It is like you said ‘it’s not a real first impression’, and I am sure that no matter how hard some people strive to keep their online selves as similar to their real selves, there will still be differences which others can misinterpret. This blurring of realities is one of the reasons why (whenever I have a job) I try my best not to add or accept friend requests from people I work with, no matter how well I may get along with them. I just find it easier to try and keep things separate until such time as I plan to quit or I have no choice but to add them because I need their help or something is coming up where most of the information will be on Facebook for ease of communication.

SinaOhlandt (discuss • contribs) 23:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Sina. There have been instances in my work where people have called in sick or asked for shift covers for various legitimate reasons, then they check in on Facebook or upload pictures that would suggest otherwise. I can understand why you would enforce a boundary between your personal and work life - do you think everyone should or do you think employers deserve some access to your personal life, particularly when it then affects your work? For example, lying about being ill so you can then go out.

In light of recent events, I find it interesting to say that we have the freedom to fact check ect, expcially in relation to the news, as there has been a big deal over fake news and even though there is a lot of information out their a lot of it is conflicting. I also like your ideas about having random 'side effects' almost of having your data online- where those anywhere (including Tinder!) can track you down, even though you never expected it. I feel like that really shows the invisibility or anonymity of those that can actually see what you post online, you don't even realise its not just the people you think are viewing it but others too! Scottmcindoe (discuss • contribs) 05:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Scott, I agree with you completely. The ability we have to fact check is fantastic and immeasurably powerful. People were organising revolutions using pictures because they were living at a time when most people could not read or write; we live at a time when most people can read and write and do have access to the internet, and the people without access have people working for them to represent their interests and share their ideas. During wartime, people depended on government-controlled newspapers for information - now the information is ours. I feel that our power to challenge and question and our power to change is amplified tenfold with the internet. Personally, I do not feel that the information concerning me online will ever be of any interest on a grand, revolutionary worldwide scale, but there will be information on other people, places and events that will be and so, in that respect, the absence of invisibility and anonymity is positive. FionaThacker (discuss • contribs) 10:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Fiona, I wholeheartedly agree that having an online visibility makes it easier for people to gain access to our information, whether we would like them to or not. This new way of “creeping” is a good point to make, as it is not potential theft and identity fraud that we have to worry about; we also now have to worry about our information being visible to strangers who we’d rather not let know where we work. Additionally I liked your point that once information is on the internet it is out of our control. I think it is good to remember that, regardless of privacy settings, online information is available to everyone. Charkleske (discuss • contribs) 11:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiExercise#3 Information Overload
To be honest, I don't cope with the amount of information available online - I am very easily distracted, especially with dogs (following Sausage Dog Central on Facebook has been my downfall as well as uplifting to an unprecedented height of happiness) but, occasionally, also with political and sociopolitical articles (following The Guardian on Faceboook does fill me with a sense of worldly knowing and understanding). However, on the odd occasion where I have given myself hours to meet an assignment deadline and must concentrate myself, I will avoid Facebook, I will avoid music, I will avoid anything - even real world distractions. In school, I could only study in absolute silence. I have become better, but still I cannot study if the television is on or someone is speaking to me. Concentrating is not my strongest skill. For me, the internet is a glittery, garish and grand world of distraction and delight - even if I am reading around my degree subject area, it may take a maximum of five minutes before I am pulled away from my subject area into anything (I am very susceptible to Top 10 videos).
 * 1) Numbered list item

For the Wikibooks project, it was initially daunting opening the project to discover a wealth of information, research and discussion already ongoing. It was challenging to follow, trains of thought and conversations seemed to jump like small insects. Organising and dividing this discussion into very clear, very concise subheadings has made the discussion easier and stricter in its relation to the topic. I am less distracted by other people's ideas and proposals relating to other subheadings, because I know where to focus and I do not allow myself to stray. In saying that, there are crossovers and it can be fun to jump into another discussion with ideas.

In general, I think having strict and obvious boundaries for subjects does make it easier to keep within those boundaries, at least for me. If the Wikibooks discussion was a thousand lines of a thousand comments on multiple subjects, I would be lost. My thoughts, ideas and suggestions would be lost because I cannot hold onto a single strand of thought in the time it takes me to fabricate a new one. Using the subheadings has helped massively, it makes it clear who you are working with and makes it simpler in deciding what and how you are working. FionaThacker (discuss • contribs) 10:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi , I read a lot of wiki exercices and I finally find someone like me who can be distracted by anything. I understand your feeling of not waisting your time by reading interesting political or sociopolitical articles, but in my opinion it is hard to not come and go from one article to an other because most websites are suggesting you other articles related to the article your just read. Sometimes I just want to know more about a fact and fall into the trap of clickable word on some article. Those clickable words are in the article so than can let you know more about a word, fact, a country. has a great method to be more productive and avoid some websites during her study time. She is using Citrus, an extension of google chrome that allows you to block some website for a selected duration. --Sarahsarah22 (discuss • contribs) 10:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

WikiExercise#4: Reflection
The Wikibook Project has been challenging - regardless of everything academic, it has been a challenge to use Wikibooks. I don't feel like Wikibooks are particularly accessible. The most apt adjective I can use is 'clunky'. Wikibooks has a clunky, cumbersome and awkward feel. It is not easy to learn or simple to navigate, which is probably the point - the clunky-ness and awkwardness of the layout probably works as a natural barrier so that only the most dedicated, determined and capable are able to contribute and edit. So unlike Facebook, whose easiness and simplicity I have developed a new appreciation for, but on Facebook there are thousands of pages created by thousands of people, quite probably for no reason other than they could. For example, there is a Facebook page called Bisexuals Who Like Hummus and another called The Same Picture of Michael Cera Everyday. I doubt you would ever find these pages of this kind on Wikipaedia, simply because, unless you are committed to the cause, it is so challenging to create content on Wikipaedia.

Creating content on your own is difficult, creating content as a group is exhausting. Following discussions on Wikipaedia requires a degree of concentration that I may never acquire. There are means of simplifying and streamlining these discussions, but, while I would sit and scroll through Facebook comments for fun, I would never scroll through a Wikipaedia discussion. Not to say that the discussion board is without it's advantages. For the project, you want to create links between topics and subtopics to create a natural flow in the content of the Wikibook, and this is actually one of the easier points - you can read the Wikibook as it appears, discuss changes and contribute and edit appropriately.

Reading for the project was, personally, fascinating. There is an abundance of research and study and literature, past and ongoing, on the subject of the internet, digital media and it's psychological consequences. Interestingly, much of this research comes with a note that there is not enough research, but of course the world, the internet and digital media are changing faster than we could write about it. For every completed study, a new study will be needed. The velocity of it all is pretty exciting and I did enjoy the sense of participation and involvement that came with producing a Wikibook.

Comments on Exercise #4
Hi there!

You make an excellent point that the Wiki platform in itself has been challenging. I think what you recognised as being “clunky” I perceived as simply formal, academic and somewhat new and unknown. Social media sites such as Facebook provide a different function to Wikimedia platforms. Therefore, there are different pages and different information on these platforms. It is the difference between informative, academic data and that which is used for leisure and entertainment. Both platforms create communities, but of different types.

I completely agree that working in a group can be tiring despite the wealth of knowledge which is created from everyone coming together. Despite this, I do not think this task could have been completed individually to the same size and standard. What do you think? Would you have preferred working alone?

The reading throughout this module has really stimulated a further interest in this topic for me. I agree, it is a never-ending wheel of research and analysis which leads to more knowledge and understanding. Which critical concept in particular have you encountered which you believe offers an intellectual insight into collaborative knowledge building and the peer review process? In my post for this exercise I discussed the concept of being “always-on” with credit to the work of Danah Boyd. I would like to have mentioned other influential theorists in this field, such as Sherry Turkle, but due to the word count I focussed on one theorist alone. Other concepts from this module such as media convergence also relate to the project. What concept did you find to be most prominent, relatable and/or influential? Did this inspire how you tackled the project and the exercises?

I agree that although this project has been challenging it has also been enjoyable and rewarding when you get yourself involved.

Evbestie (discuss • contribs) 00:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Evbestie (discuss • contribs) 09:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello! ‘Clunky’ is a fantastic word, and I can fully understand and agree with it. Compared to creating Facebook pages, it is very difficult to find the right kind of information to put up on a Wiki-page as well as how to phrase things because on here, it is really formalised.

I also agree that the discussion pages were quite hard to navigate through, but I did find that it got a little easier as I spent more time checking and updating information or some of the things that I managed to find (Though I do share your avoidance for looking through a discussion page on this site, compared to a Facebook timeline for comments).

The high speed at which we all created the project was definitely interesting and fun to go through, but is there anything you would have done differently? Are there any books or theorists that you’ve recently found out about that you feel would have been more helpful to you had you read their works earlier? SinaOhlandt (discuss • contribs) 11:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)
The Introduction section here is a little perfunctory, but the main Concepts section is where all of the key sections are mapped out. Each section has its own descriptive short paragraph, summarising the discussion and concept in fairly neat and concise ways. The overall effect of this is that the chapter is given a sense of narrative and structure from the outset. Whilst the discussion in various sections doesn’t always live up to this, and there are one or two inconsistencies, this ought not to diminish too much for the achievements evidenced here.

As mentioned, the sections themselves generally contain good content, but there are inconsistencies regarding the strength of argument, and citation of sources. An obvious example of this would be the first history section, for which citation of sources doesn’t occur until the paragraph on the 1990s!

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 use of interwiki links connecting all of the sections of the chapter together is both very useful and evidences good levels of project management, delegation of workflow, and joined-up collaboration. One thing that would have benefitted the chapter enormously, is if these interwiki links could have been extended to include more reference to other chapters in the book. For example, you have a subsection on Surveillance uses – there could have been interwiki links to various relevant sections in other chapters (especially, perhaps, Privacy in a Digital Age chapter).

Plenty of evidence of reading, secondary research and application of ideas from peer-reviewed sources, as well as other sources from popular culture and journalistic materials. This does tend to vary quite considerably from section to section, however, with some sections oddly drawing from newspaper online articles around topics for which there are materials available in the further reading lists (the subsections on internal effects, the Google effect and others, where there are some obvious aspects of that reading e.g. Vaidhyanathan and his book on the Googlization of Everything). Excellent section on FOMO.

The references section evidences research, reading and sharing of resources. However, the depth and range of sources could be considerably improved.


 * 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


 * Poor. Among other things, poor entries may just offer links without real comment or apparent point. They may offer nothing more than poor-quality synopsis or description of material of dubious relevance. They may have serious clarity problems (including dead links, random graphics) which affect comprehension (or even worse, admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement). They might be off-topic, private trivia, or of unclear relevance. The wiki markup formatting will be of a poor standard.


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

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