User talk:Frosorsmoth

FMSU9A4: Wiki Exercises
Online Visibility

In this day and age, the consensual exposure of personal information on online platforms is walking a thin line between what is necessary to show and what is unnecessary. The variations of social media platforms that demonstrate these vulnerabilities is wide. From platforms like Reddit, Tumblr and Playstation Network which favor anonymity to the likes of Facebook, Instagram and Twitter where a users entire profile and personality is laid out for the world to see. It is important to be selective of the information that one may portray considering that their online 'avatar' is merely a projection of ones personality. We only see a fraction of what a person is doing on a day to day basis yet the components of what they set up for us to observe tend to contain pivotal amounts of information that are being spilled out to anyone linked together. For example, on Facebook the majority of users add others on Facebook that they don't talk to or just know from passing by. Is it a wise decision to broadcast such intel to people we barely know? Is this just a cry out for attention and an attempt to make oneself more important? The links between online visibility and mental wellbeing are interesting to document. It is unknown what will happen to the life longevity of future generations after exposure to the internet boom of the twenty first century but many psychology professors speculate that social media has a lot to do with the increased depression and anxiety suffered by young people nowadays. It is fascinating to speculate how much it will affect millenials and generation Z in the years when they are expected to bring up their families yet are so fixed on the unecessary goings on of the people they left behind in their younger days. Social media is already undeniably responsible for the suicide of teenagers and children as it grants bullies oppurtunities to strike at their targerts without the physical repurcussions that children often engage in. The trickiest part of it all is the fact that exposure of information is mostly entirely consensual. Whatever you post on Instagram is all your choice, the contents of the picture, the meaning behind it, how you alter and edit it etc. So the question that arises is; are the bad things that happen to people who are visible online their fault? I mean it should never be anyones fault that they are bullied, stalked or harassed but at the same time, those things are unfortunately part of todays culture, in the problems that many people face. I believe the main objective of users online is to be extremely cautious around their anonymity and to never allow their 'avatar', what strangers see them as, engulf who they really are as a person.

1. @Frosorsmoth: Hi Fraser, I found your writing to be very interesting with regards to the idea of mental health. I agree with your point of the majority of users using the platforms to create a false persona to make their lives look as idealistic as possible. I would also say that it is proven that the youth of today would benefit so much more from an absence of social media, which is not realistically possible, so they end up sucked into this mentality of competing to see who can have the most followers or likes on a picture, which can ultimately result in obtaining mental health issues and insecurities. It is true that social media platforms have had the power to take over an individual's life to the extent of not being able to socialise properly in real life. Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed your take on online visibility, good work! Amm00137 (discuss • contribs) 18:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

2. This was a really interesting piece to read! I was really impressed with the comment on mental health too as this is a subject which needs addressing. By connecting the way we are visible and use online services to mental health and even cases such as suicide you have opened another avenue of discussion. You also raise a really good moral dilemma over who is to 'blame' for the abuse they receive. On one hand you express that victims are never at fault (which I agree with!) but then you touch on how being visible online does knowingly increase the risk. This could have had more evidence of the effects but I know we've all had issues providing links and sources. Otherwise, this is a really well written piece that raises great questions! Plus, very easy and enjoyable writing style. Well done! MillyZombie (discuss • contribs) 10:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

3. I enjoyed your piece! I agree it is strange to think about the link between social media and mental well being because something as superficial and frivolous has a large grasp on today's culture, especially the youth. I enjoyed your thoughts and wording of this issue, especially the "what is necessary to show and what is unnecessary." I also found the question you rose about who's fault it is because we never want to blame a victim but these addictive tendencies that this generation shares for social media and being able to post what they want has made the question you posed very critical. As for the assignment I think you could have used more personal examples like your own online visibility and how it affects you. Great read!!!

Annotated Bibliography

K, Finley (2018) The Internet of Things Could Drown Our Environment in Gadgets. [online] WIRED. Available at: https://www.wired.com/2014/06/green-iot/ [Accessed 10 Mar. 2018].

In this article, Finley explains how in an effort to make technological advancements more environmentally friendly, we have inadvertedly plotted a course to cause more harm to the planet. He uses data recovered from the company 'Nest's own information blog that claims that their thermostat is designed to save energy yet no records of their other products doing the same. Finley's analysis focuses on potential ways for technology companies to make their products more environmentally friendly. For example, he suggests that a software upgrade would be of better use to their products than a complete replacement. This is useful to my 'Internet of Things' research as it covers the wide range of products that are designed to be web connected as well as giving examples of companies that engage in the sort of 'positive' activity. The main limitation of this extract is that Finley offers little to no evidence for how much these products increase their carbon footprint in terms of statistics. This indicates that the thesis pitched as well as company blogs will need to have more research conducted in order to make progress on remedies. This article will not follow the same lines of my research but it is useful insight on to how varied the internet of things is in terms of it's capabilities and effect.

Comment

 * This sounds like a really interesting piece and I will definitely like to read it at some point. The internet of things has been one of my favourite topics and I find it interesting to look at how everything has evolved. I'm glad that there's people out there that are looking at the impact that technology is having in our environment. Over all this is an interesting annotated bibliography.


 * Hi Fraser, this is a really interesting summary and will be sure to return to this source as it seems relevant not only to research on the ‘Internet of Things’ but also in other aspects of the module. The carbon footprint of products themselves is something I have never really given much thought about but will definitely be conscious of now. This could tie in well with my own research group’s topic of always-on culture on how being connected at all times has its affect on the planet in terms of electricity used to power this connectivity. Well done on a really well summarised and enticing piece of work. Vw428 (discuss • contribs) 18:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Fraser found your annotated bibliography to be a great read. Did you use this in your groups collaborative essay?

MTxPrincipessa18 (discuss • contribs) 16:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello there. Unfortunately, this topic of conversation will not form the base of my collaborative essay. That piece of work will focus more on the perceived dependency of technological appliances by modern society, a topic which I have wanted to cover for a long time now. I am glad you enjoyed my piece as, despite it not being my focused research, it is an insightful and interesting subject to learn from. #Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 22:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

{{reply to | Frosorsmoth} I see what you mean, even though you haven't used this for a basis for your collaborative essay, I am certainly glad you did this for your annotated bibliography. Great read! MTxPrincipessa18 (discuss • contribs) 13:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Collaborative Research Exercise


 * Hey, your annotated bibliography is a great read, as it is both interesting and seems like a good summary of the article. I have not read this specific article, but I have been researching the Internet of Things for the collaborative essay, and agree that it would be useful for that purpose. The issue of insufficient evidences is definitely a limiting factor, however, this piece of research suggests some interesting arguments that I have not considered before or seen mentioned in other research. I read a chapter on the theoretical positive elements of smart cities that you might find useful for your own collaborative essay research. Overall, your annotated bibliography was an insightful read and sounds useful for research on the Internet of Things. Kab00094 (discuss • contribs) 12:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to discuss something about the internet of things that I read up on in 'The Internet of Things' (Bunz, Meikle). It mentions how a driver managed to crash his sat-nav dictated car by trusting the machine more than his instincts. I believe it is a fascinating discussion as not only does it show just how much the internet of things is incorporated into all of our key devices but it speaks a lot about us and how willing people are to just blindly follow the rules laid out by machines no matter what. The answer is not black and white however. I recall an incident at primary school were I trusted the girl sitting next to me and her answer to a question rather than what the device I was using told me. Needless to say I didn't get that question right. So obviously we reap what we sow when it comes to the amount of trust we put in machines and I am interested in hearing your view on this. #Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 19:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it is a captivating situation when people decided to put more trust in technology than themselves. I think that my interest is due to the copious amounts of articles and television shows about people not trusting new technology, and how depending on the creators view technology is either the end of the world or the best thing to ever happen, there often seems to be a lack of a middle ground between the two extreme opinions. Although, when incidences like the one you mentioned happen, I am unsure whether people do not realise how connected to the internet and technology they are or that they believe that since the technology is easily available to them it is automatically trustworthy. I remember my mum telling me a story from someone at her work whose son went to dinner at a friends and could not be contacted, the police ended up involved and suggested to use a tracker in a watch to know where he was. I think this shows that as a society we are becoming too reliant on technology to solve our problems.

Before starting this semester I did not realise the amount of inanimate objects that can be connected to the internet, for example, shoes, egg trays or mirrors, there is multiple different websites with lists of strangest or weirdest internet of things devices. Some I can understand the logic behind, other seem to fall into a more consumerism based logic. I am still doubtful that these technologies are being produced for the right reasons and not just to increase company profits. How do you feel about the amount of different connected devices available and the effect it is have on society? Kab00094 (discuss • contribs) 15:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

It reminds me an awful lot of Black Mirror. It really puts into perspective how dependent we think we are on technology. Some of us can see past the whole charade though, and going back to items and goods of a simpler variety. I believe that it isn't black and white on whether it is harmful or not to society with having everything interconnected. On the one hand, it is great that we can use this as a force for good so we can raise awareness for issues as well as constantly organise our lives much quicker than before. On the other hand, we seem to trick ourselves into thinking our very existence relies on the usefulness of our technological devices. While things may be easier, it can be useful to go through tasks the harder way as it is more fulfilling and can lead you to discovering new experiences and things about yourself. #Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 15:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This topic on the impact technology has on the environment is one that all of us should beware of. It really made me think about all the digital devices/services that exist today and whether or not they are needed. There are so many technological products that have been created but are completely pointless. I believe that those are the ones that we should cut back on. Have you ever bought from a second hand store or products that have been refurbished? This is one way you can start reducing your footprint. Celine Hunt (discuss • contribs) 10:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the amount of pointless technological gadgets. Did you know there was once something invented called the 'DVD rewinder'? It really makes you think of what people are really requesting and who in the technology executive board is greenlighting these insane ideas. I think it is very important for things to be recycled, be it hand me down material or second hand shop products. Once these big companies designing and selling these inventions that are basically designed to trick their cusomers stop earning their expected fee then maybe they will buck up their ideas and stop treating their clients like children. Honestly, the customers aren't really helping with how they are perceived. The have more of a want than a need mentality which is very unhealthy and needs to be monitored, as it is not only bad for them as a consumer of products but also it will lead to them making bad choices in life. #Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 18:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh no...I wish you did not tell me about the DVD rewinder. That makes me upset. If only these companies were charged a fee for the damage they are producing by making these products. Unfortunately, everything is about making a profit. I strongly agree with our statement about people having more of a want than a need mentality. When I pick up a product, I always question myself. I ask myself do I need this item to survive. If I need it to survive then I will make a purchase but if I do not then I will not buy it.

Celine Hunt (discuss • contribs) 17:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * do you agree that by creating more technology that we are harming the environment more? I find this piece has an extremely interesting take on the internet of things, and I have to admit, it follows my own similar concerns with the increase of technology. I find there is a lot of unnecessary things hooked up to the internet that don't need to be. Like those fridges that automatically reorder things when it ruins out. I mean, what if you don't want any more strawberries or don't have the funds in the account that the fridge is connected too? Do you think we have become too reliant on the itnernet of things? Rej00012 (discuss • contribs) 14:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we really have become too reliant. I'm actually writing my collaborative essay on how people seem to convince themselves into believing that every single appliance they have must be connected to the network in one way or another. It is almost automatic in the way that people just decide to use their equipment without realizing any of the negative repercussions that may transpire. #Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 22:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Collaborative Essay

Collaborative Essay Discussion Page
This is the disccussion page for my collab essay. The subject I am doing is Internet of Things, below is a selection of articles I have found Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 19:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

List of sources used and why they're useful

Lanier, J; You are not a gadget: a manifesto. (2010). I used this as Jaron Lanier is highly regarded as a very influential and insightful intellect among the computing community. He offers fierce support on the anti-internet of things side and the points he make are interesting and make for great debate. Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 20:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC) European Environment Agency. (2018). Complex challenges in an interconnected world. [online] This is the most basic of answers provided for a beginners level of research on the internet of things. Providing information that is easy to understand yet insightful in its content. Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 20:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Techaddiction.ca. (2018). Statistics on Children’s Use of TV, Internet, & Video Games. This is an up to date and relevant source. It is interesting to speculate how involved future generations of people will be like with interconnectivity and this is a good stepping stone to see the potential. Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 20:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC) ETtech.com. (2018). 5 challenges to Internet of Things - ETtech. [online] Takes an impartial view of things, wanting to support the increase in life helping technology but very aware of the potential threat it can cause. Again, one for the future state of things. Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 20:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Collaborative Essay
QUESTION

'In what ways has the Internet of Things changed the lives of millions by the growing inter connectivity of everyday objects and does it cause people to over complicate their lives?' Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 19:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

INTRODUCTION

With seemingly every single device produced by mankind nowadays connected to the internet in one way or another, it seems as if the web is an inescapable dome that surrounds everyone, with many seeing it as a force for diversity of thought, prosperous ingenuity, and a network of communication. Yet at the same time, many others see the constant internet reliance as an abandonment of values we once held dear, leading to antisocial behavior, neediness on technology and a higher risk of exposure to the dark sides of anonymity, such as bullying, stalking or blackmail. Both sides bring many good points to the table, and it only makes sense that this debate should be brought up. Are we too reliant on technology nowadays? If not, where do we get this impression that every single one of our inventions need to be wired up somehow? Many scholars who study the Internet of Things have theorized and mapped out reasons and research for why things are the way they are just now and emphasize the importance of the benefits as well as the detriments of technology. This essay is going to attempt to answer some of these questions using the detailed analysis from computer intellectuals and fact based internet knowledge. Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 19:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

MAIN BODY

Jaron Lanier is a computer philosopher and former Silicon Valley visionary who has since encouraged the abandonment of digital media and has dedicated his career in helping young people ‘find their humanity again ‘. He states '''‘Different media designs stimulate different potentials in human nature. We shouldn’t seek to make the pack mentality as efficient as possible. We should instead seek to inspire the phenomenon of individual intelligence.’''' This suggests that different technological reliance’s apply to different individuals. Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 19:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

'''‘This digital revolutionary still believes in most of the lovely deep ideals that energized our work so many years ago. At the core was a sweet faith in human nature. If we empowered individuals, we believed, more good would come to them than harm.’''' This was Lanier’s incorrect prediction. In empowering those with a communication device as versatile as the internet, it gave way to what are commonly known as haters and trolls. Those who cannot provide a voice in real life seek out to hurt others in a way they can only do via the internet. In a sense, there was an empowerment of sorts except not in the way it was intended. Human dignity and compassion was swept to the side to be replaced by vengeance and bitterness and a longing for disruption. Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 19:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

There is an interesting point to be made about the longevity of the interconnectivity and the consequences it will lead to with future generations. In 2011, a volcano in Iceland erupted which disrupted around nine hundred flights and put the entire northern hemisphere in a state of chaos in regards to travel. This was seven years ago and the situation regarding interconnectivity has only gotten more prosperous in connection to its cause and effect. 'We can’t say exactly what the earth will look or feel like in 2050. Many trends are already well established. How they continue comes down to the choices we make now. In that sense, the future is in our hands. Let’s choose wisely. Our grandchildren and everybody else in the family portrait 2050 will thank us for it.' This is an intriguing statement made by the European Environment Agency, telling us how the future of this technologically dependent society is in our hands. Their use of the word 'trends' is rather telling as trends come and go, leading to the belief that this wave of connected necessity may come to an end very shortly. However, there is evidence to suggest that this fad will carry on in the near future with little dropping. According to Tech Addiction, 'In a typical day, children consume just over three hours of media. This includes computer use, cell phone use, tablet use, music, and reading.' If this continues without parental interference, this could result in these childrens future offspring being more attached to technology and find themselves in a more isolated state than ever before due to lack of outside world exposure. Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 19:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

John Palfrey said 'The key to thriving in an increasingly complex world is to develop a nuanced, stable theory of interoperability.' This statement does seem to suggest that, whether we are aware of it or not, having all of our systems wired to each other is an essential part of the world we live in. According to Palfrey, while there are some considerations and limitations we need to take when becoming so reliant on them, the interconnected devices are a very helpful and purposeful piece of the puzzle we wish to solve to manage our lives better. He takes the counter approach to Jaron Lanier in enforcing the point that the Internet of Things is a force for good with great intentions and great outcomes if slightly less than desirable. Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 19:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, theories applied by Lanier as well as the analysis and data provided by these different websites have managed to stretch the knowledge and understanding of just how influential the Internet of Things truly is. How it effects is in the most subtle of ways with what it does to our everyday habits. It really seems to blur the lines between the correct answer on whether we have become too dependent on our devices and since abandoned our humanity. Some may say that it is quite a stretch to say that we are becoming all too reliant on the machinery though, as ever since the first western technological revolution in the 1600's, we have always used machines to sort our lives out. However, the 21st century is truly giving way to a new sort of person. One which seems to take all these devices for granted and who believe their most desired person of the time will be there with the tapping of some keys. Only time will tell if our inter-connectivity will cause ultimate harm though, and it is essential to identify and stop it before it becomes too late. The future lies in interconnected devices but how we manage them will decide how our Digital future is shaped.' ''' Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 19:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lanier, J; You are not a gadget: a manifesto. (2010). Choice Reviews Online, 47(10), pp.47-5602-47-5602. Travelweekly.com. (2018). The cult of Airbnb: Travel Weekly. [online] Available at: http://www.travelweekly.com/Danny-King/The-cult-of-Airbnb [Accessed 3 Apr. 2018]. European Environment Agency. (2018). Complex challenges in an interconnected world. [online] Available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2011/articles/complex-challenges-in-an-interconnected-world [Accessed 3 Apr. 2018]. Techaddiction.ca. (2018). Statistics on Children’s Use of TV, Internet, & Video Games - TechAddiction. [online] Available at: http://www.techaddiction.ca/media-statistics.html [Accessed 3 Apr. 2018]. ETtech.com. (2018). 5 challenges to Internet of Things - ETtech. [online] Available at: https://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/internet/5-challenges-to-internet-of-things/52700940 [Accessed 3 Apr. 2018].

Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 19:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

comments
COLLABORATIVE ESSAY REFLECTIVE ACCOUNT

The collaborative nature of the wiki essay was a good idea in theory that, when I think about it more, manages to help humanize those who are most affected by the Internet of Things. By this I mean that a co-operative theme brings out the best in the connection between human beings and their devices, their different functions being utilized while still retaining the essence and cognitive thinking of a group working together. I believe that the wikibooks format can be useful in emphasizing visibility as it acts as a very social branch of the internet where you are free to modify and make adjustments wherever you please. This allows you to really make your mark on a piece of work and bring the most thoughtful and constructive of feedback on a piece of work. The community that has been fostered is very eager to be involved in whatever discussion that is brought up and is always keen to provide their own thoughts and rebuttals to the topics brought up. I can talk from experience as I have received multiple notifications per day that directly relate to my own discussions and a healthy debate tends to be brought up, free from all interruptions.

The wikibooks format presents a form of digital commons in the idea that our contributions from both our key readings and our perspective on the topic act as a form of resource. There has been much information that I wished to include in my writings that were initially unattainable to me until the reference that I needed was included in a constructive comment made by another user. As a form of assistance, this inclusive and collaborative way of working really is useful for learning more. One of the main drawbacks however is how difficult Wikibooks is to use for a newcomer. I cannot speak for everyone but I really struggled with it in the first few days of use trying to find how everything worked and how everything was structured.

I would argue that this platform and others like it to offer a form of emancipation that sets itself off from other forms of group work. While face to face with partners and having intellectual debate, you are at risk of not making your point across due to pressure, lack of time or even interruption. With this platform, you have plenty of time to formulate and structure your answer with no fear of another point coming across mid-statement. It probably allows for better ways of group discussion due to the questions and queries being set in stone for analysis before your answer as well as options for alterations midway.

Overall, I think that an online and collaborative format of answering questions is probably the most fitting option for this module. It goes hand in hand with what the theme of interconnectivity that we explored early on in the module as well as the obvious inclusion of collective intelligence and the use of multiple brains to create a collective piece of research. It also helped greatly with my computer skills, allowing me to explore algorithms and typing techniques for something as basic as leaving my name at the end of a sentence. No doubt this feature will help me greatly in my later years of university. Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 13:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with most of your points about Wikibooks, and found your piece interesting to read. however I think that emancipation can be prevented as comments and pages can be edited and deleted which can prevent people from voicing their opinions. Pages and discussions can be easily changed which makes it difficult for some people to be understood. It also takes away the control that person has over their own page which makes them feel almost venerable. This platform is unlike any others in terms of the visibility, there isnt much privacy, everything that a user does is documented for others to see. I agree with your point that Wikibooks was useful for our collaborative essay as I found this was also the case for myself ad my group. We were able to clearly connect and discuss about our work which made it helpful and quicker to get the work done. It was clear to see who was engaging with the work and who wasn't. Did you find there was people interacting more than others?? and did this effect your overall essay?? There was a two people in my group that had hardly any interaction which proved quite annoying when coming to the end of the assessment.

Another thing that I found particularly difficult when working with Wikibooks was the format, I fid it quite hard to navigate myself around pages just because of the layout. It appears to be more complicated than it needs to be in my opinion. I still find editing confusing and replying to people is too much hassle. If i had one criticism about the platform it would be that. It needs to be made into an easier format. I had to google how to use most of the features, and still didn't understand it. did you also find this an issue? I spoke to some people about how difficult it was to get to grips with, some people quite liked the way it has been played out so would be interesting to hear your opinion.

Through editing other peoples work on discussion pages, it can cause some controversy. Some people get quite defensive when it comes to that. There is always going to be disagreements when it comes to editing as everyone has different writing styles. When someone edited a piece of my work although it was useful I also did feel a tad upset over it, some users may not want their work edited which is out of their control. I think it is a good platform when doing group work, however if someone is trying to get their opinion or views across they may run into some difficulty. Your experience in constructing your collaborative essay seems to be positive, did you find it difficult to add links etc to your page? I definitely think Wiki should change their website to make it easier for people. However, I would keep the same amount of visibility, as it comes in useful when doing group projects. Personally, I don't think I will use it in the future when it comes to personal use however in collaborative essays I can see myself using this as a resource. Erin.mcnamara (discuss • contribs) 21:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that the level of trust we have in each other as classmates can prevail over the notion of random changes being made that can cause disruption in the ranks of the wiki accounts. I find it more useful to use this platform with a generally tight knit group as a pose to letting anyone feel free to roam. I actually did find a few familiar names popping up on the comments section, further emphasizing the value of friendship and teamwork handy to this. The format was tricky I agree and I think a few simplifying touches would benefit it greatly. I really needed the help of some of my more tech savvy friends just to know some of the shortcuts.

I never found much controversy with my comments, nobody really got defensive. It really depends on the way you structure your response with giving out the good feedback first before any sort of constructive criticism an afterthought. Always ask questions, as it is the definitive proof that you have read and understood their statement. Frosorsmoth (discuss • contribs) 10:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: DISCUSSION, ENGAGEMENT, CONTRIBS

 * Clear Fail. Assignment responses receiving marks below 30% tend to not contain any merit or relevance to the module. Contributions are one-liners, sometimes made up of text-speak, if there are any contributions at all. Often they are indicative of failure to comment on other students’ ideas, and therefore do not engage with the crucial peer-review element. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement, or the user has been blocked for vandalism or other contraventions of wiki T&C. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.

Students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.


 * One in total.

Evidence from contribs to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of editorial activity as evidenced through ‘contribs’). These are primarily considered for quality rather than quantity, but as a broad guideline: o	Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial” o	Items on a contribs list that are <1000 characters are important, and are considered in the round when evaluating contribs as a whole because of their aggregate value


 * None.

•	Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages o	Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration o	Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay o	Evidence of peer-review of others’ work


 * None.

•	Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages o	Clear delegation of tasks o	Clearly labelled sections and subsections o	Contributions are all signed


 * None.

•	Civility. Your conduct is a key component of any collaboration, especially in the context of an online knowledge-building community. Please respect others, as well as observe the rules for civility on wiki projects. All contribs are moderated.


 * You conducted yourself according to the conventions, based on the evidence from your single post.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
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 the making criteria as outlined in the relevant documentation, 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.


 * Although this work is at the lower end of this grade band (so there’s clearly room for improvement here) there’s also some real potential in evidence to take some of the ideas discussed forward. 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 these particular posts, your particular strengths lie in an ability to both solicit and to sustain discussion and peer-review.


 * Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, if you had become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would have made a considerable difference.


 * 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).

General:


 * Reading and research: A fair amount of evidence here.


 * Argument and analysis: Again, a fair amount of evidence, and real sense of engagement at times.


 * Presentation: See above comment – to reiterate, could have been done better.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 10:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)