User talk:GailZWiki

I am using this page as part of an educational class project for digital media in which we collaborate on Wiki projects and identify how and why Wikibooks is used.

GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 13:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1 What makes a good Wiki?
Online social media platforms and other websites that involve the collaboration of information can be a useful tool for the sharing of ideas and helping workflow. Different platforms can be used for different types of collaboration. In terms of helping workflow I would typically use Facebook (and Facebook Messenger) to share ideas with friends on projects, work and ideas because it is easy to connect with people quickly and it is likely that I will get a fast response since a lot of people use Facebook daily. However, the qualitative aspect of sharing information on Facebook is not always that useful because a lot of information that is irrelevant and useless to me can show up on my timeline or can become a distraction. The system of 'liking' something can also be unhelpful because things may be shared for the purpose of being liked but are not necessarily quality content.

Reddit is an aggregator website that I consume, but I don't have a Reddit account and so don't participate in the sharing of information. A huge variety of people, information, ideas, news and creativity can be found on Reddit posts and are often enhanced by the community's forum style comments that go along with it. Different topics have their own 'subreddits' with a list of rules and a group of users who moderate the subreddit to keep the content relevant and to a higher standard. However some users of Reddit criticise it for being a 'hive mind' in that if you don't agree with the dominating opinion, you may be 'downvoted'. This rating and points system is the main reason I do not have an account.

Wikapedia appears to be useful in that it is well maintained by users that want to share information and knowledge and have respect for the website. Anyone can sign up to edit the website, but those people who may not have good enough quality information or want to drag the quality down in some way are prevented from doing much damage. Even if not all users aer able to produce information, they are still able to consume it.

GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 21:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wiki Exercise #1


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


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


 * This post is at the upper end of this grade band, so a little improvement will go a long way to attaining a higher mark. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and (especially for this, perhaps, the Understanding) criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets. Less instrumentally, and more in relation to this particular post you are clearly engaging with the ideas and responding to the brief in interesting ways. The comparisons (and identifying the qualitative differences) between social media, aggregators and wikis is very useful, and I think the beginning of something that could be expanded upon considerably in project contribs.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are quite good. I like 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). You are thinking about what is being written and responding in ways that, hopefully, will solicit some good discussion as other researchers get used to the platform and its functionality. Conceptually, you havbe a good understanding, and with further reading, this is clearly going to improve. I look forward to reading your contribs. Keep this up!

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 10:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Ex#1
Misslouisepark (discuss • contribs) 14:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Louise Park (Misslouisepark) This is a very insightful passage, Gail. I found it useful how you detailed your personal experience of various online mediums, highlighting the positives and negatives. The comments you made in your writing are helpful to someone who does not use Facebook. It alerts them to what the platform is all about and lets them know how the platform compares to Wikipedia. I found your comments on Reddit particularly interesting. How do you think your opinion on Reddit would change if you were not only a consumer of the site but also a contributor of content? Do you believe that Wikipedia has to make any changes to prevent excessive misuse of their website ('people who may not have good quality information or want to drag the quality down')?

Misslouisepark (discuss • contribs) 14:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment Louise. I think I would enjoy being a contributer to Reddit in some ways because I often see posts that I feel I would have something interesting or relevant to contribute. In similar ways to Facebook, I would censor myself because usually I can't be bothered getting into deep discussions or debates online. I might be at risk of spending even more time on it than I do already, which is another reason why I haven't signed up. As far as your question about Wikipedia goes, I think the way they monitor the iite is effective. Although false information can come up sometimes, this is usually quickly fixed.

GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 18:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

This edit was very helpful, as you explained all the different social media platform that you have used. Your point of Facebook is interesting as a lot of students use it to form groups to help them with their personal work and you can also help other people. However, in many websites, there is also the risk of a 'hive mind' like you wrote. The content must be approved by other users which can sometimes limit or demean certain subjects. Clarabiswiki (discuss • contribs) 17:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The way you analyzed your personal experience with social media and Wikipedia is definitely very helpful in understanding the topic and a great starting point for wider discussion. You mentioned that Facebook is sometimes a distraction due to the irrelevant content that is posted. I agree, many Facebook fan pages are like – orientated. This is the problem of not only the ones that were created for entertainment but also of the serious political magazines. Posts on Facebook profile of Independent are not very different of the usual content of tabloid. Also, the respected fashion magazines, even Vogue, very often become obsessed with ‘click – baits’ posts. It is politically and economically charged as obviously they make money on the amount of ‘likes’. That brings us back to the fears of collective intelligence on social media being undermined through consumption of irrelevant content. Notion of ‘hive mind’, that you mentioned definitely applies in this case.

Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 19:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gail, I enjoyed reading your post and I found myself agreeing with most of your comments, especially about Wikipedia. I liked your balanced viewpoint on your personal experiences with Facebook and Reddit. I found your reasoning behind not having a Reddit account interesting; You can subscribe to different ‘sub-reddits’ as you stated, but there is no pressure to post or comment (much like Facebook) and you could easily ‘lurk’ without being criticised if you disagree with opinions. Personally, I would much rather debate about something I disagree with, with an anonymous user (on Reddit) rather than somebody I personally know (on Facebook). I would prefer being ‘downvoted’ with anonymity rather than causing conflict with people I will interact with in person. Would you not? CammeyNotCameron (discuss • contribs) 04:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Cammey, thanks for your comment. Yeah you're right, I may sign up for Reddit and continue to 'lurk' as before. I'm guessing you use Reddit. If so, what do you use it for and are you signed up? You're comment about debating with someone online anonymously in comparison to someone in real life is really interesting. I debate with people sometimes in real life but pretty much never do that online. Yet I do agree that it's better to be downvoted anonymously than causing conflict in real life. I guess maybe I'm more interested in hearing what friends and family think about topics than strangers. Or perhaps it's because to your face people can sometimes be a bit more open minded or nicer, whereas people online can get away with being pretty brutal sometimes!

GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 18:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 2: Visibility and Data Trails
Due to my use of social media and other websites that require me to create a user account, I have a reasonably visible online presence. Some of my online profiles I use primarily for the purpose of sharing my identity and being visible in order to connect with friends and family. My Facebook and Snapchat profiles are somewhat of an extension of myself because these are the two platforms in which I share multiple photos of myself as well as thoughts and comments. However, I do tend to hold back what I share on my profiles as I don’t want to overshare and don't want people to know everything about me all the time. I control what is visible to others more on Facebook because a wider circle of people and family members can see what I post, while anyone can look me up and see parts of my profile. On Snapchat the fact that content disappears means I don't make as much effort to edit myself because there is not a permanent profile with personal information. I am only visible on a Snapchat timeline when I choose to be, however someone I am with could take a photo or video of me and post it to their friends on Snapchat.

There are quite a lot of platforms I don’t want or need to share as much of my identity on, but I have to sign up for them in order to use the website fully. This includes: Youtube, Soundcloud, Spotify, Google+, and Steam plus websites for email, shopping and streaming. However, on most of these websites I have uploaded a profile picture or they are connected to my Facebook because I don’t mind if my friends find and connect with me on these platforms and I don’t share much personal information on them anyway. There are also a few videos that I am in on Youtube due to my involvement with AirTV and my name is mentioned in the credits. Who sees those videos are not in my control and they could potentially look me up online.

I feel that my online visibility isn’t completely in my control. In order to demonstrate this, I Google searched my name. The first page of results were almost all related to me, and included a property website that had information about addresses where I have lived and named my parents, some of my public profiles, and other websites where people had referred to me. On Google images there were two photos of me from public profiles, plus photos of some of my family members who are connected to me on social media and some photos from other people's blogs that have used my photos and credited me for them. I feel that I don't want some photos of me being made public, and have in fact deleted them now that I know how accessible they are.

GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 16:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Ex#2
Hi Gail, from reading your post we seem to have the same online presence as each other; I too use my Facebook and snapchat profiles as an extension of myself in the same way as you have stated and I’m also careful about what I put online for various different reasons:
 * 1) I also consciously have on my mind about over sharing, I may not post something on my Facebook page for a couple of weeks but when it comes to posting, I still ask myself “is this worth uploading?”
 * 2) As I’m sure you know yourself, it can be annoying. We all have that friend who shares absolutely everything that comes to mind, which usually leads to ‘unfollowing’ them.
 * 3) I also don’t want people to know everything about me. Even although we know our friends on Facebook, there are some you might not want to know your business, I think it is wise to be careful about what we post online, especially with reference to privacy and safety for example sharing our location.

I found your point on having to share our information with certain websites very interesting in relation to email sign ups, shopping and streaming. Especially shopping websites, I never would have thought of this as an example although I think you’ve made a great point! we give our name, email and address to these sites and lets face it (nobody reads the terms and conditions) therefore we don’t know what they’re doing with our information.

Overall I found your post enjoyable to read and was able to think of the exercise in a different light than I might have originally. I also feel I can relate to everything you have said. Thanks! ArianneStirling (discuss • contribs) 22:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I could relate easily to your article. We have the same presence on the same websites. Most of our generations use networks like Facebook or Instagram to be visible and to show themselves. I do agree with you about over sharing. I haven't posted a Facebook status in years, I mostly just prefer to upload pictures. I do like some articles but I never comment or engage with them simply because I feel like Facebook isn't really a place to expose all of your feelings but rather to just show your personality but not start sharing every thought. I do think that I do not have anything worthy of posting and announcing to everyone on my Facebook because I would just tell my close friends and I do not interact with everyone that is my friend on Facebook. Do you not find it odd that we would be willing to share pictures of ourselves but not write about ourselves? Pictures make us even more visible online than a post about our day.

It is true that we are not in control of our identities on the internet because we often have to share our information to join many different websites sometimes we have to give out our e-mail address simply to read an online newspaper. Would you ever be discouraged of joining a website because you had to share too many information and therefore increase your online visibility?

Clarabiswiki (discuss • contribs) 16:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I completely understand where you are coming from when it comes to over sharing content online. I think we sometimes forget how dangerous social media platforms can be- especially on websites like facebook, many of us list where we work and study on our profile page and this could, potentially, be dangerous. It can be too easy to share and I know I often forget how vulnerable my personal information is. I like your point about having to share your personal information on multiple platforms, even ones you may not use as frequently; I have had to give my personal email address out to many websites that I have wanted full access to. I can relate to your last point about having deleted some pictures after realising how accessible they were, I recently deleted my instagram account for the very same reason. KGilbert (discuss • contribs) 00:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)



The way you described Facebook and Snapchat as extension of yourself and admitted that their main use is sharing your identity is really interesting. It brings on mind the notion of highly self - constructed identity that you want to share online. But what about the identity you don’t want to share? The one that is created for example by business companies from you shopping decision, the videos you watched, the websites you visited? Also, are you completely certain that content disappears from Snapchat? Even if it is not visible for regular users, it stays in the Web as digital trail, like a footprint. It might be use for various reasons by various entities and I find it quite disturbing. You also made a very good point about necessity of providing your details on certain platforms in order to sign up. However, again, even if you feel confident about your friends connecting with you on them, there are other individuals and different organizations that are able to find you through your visibility there. The awareness that we never can be entirely sure who may gain access to our ‘digital identities’ is worrying. You provided a great example of leaving digital data trails that are no longer under our control by talking about searching your name on Google. It illustrates the fact that, however sinister it sounds, Web doesn’t forget. The information we share stay there in various forms, but they do stay.

Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 01:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I really liked your insight on how you view how platforms act as a sort of extension of yourself. This is a thought that has come up across the course and seems to really come into light in your writing. The way you have written about the disposable sort of aspect of Snapchat is interesting because it shows that possibly it has a disappearing train online and therefore you are more lenient to he content you share on that platform. What I found particularly concerning was the part where you talked about yourself on Google and your families addresses. Its pretty intriguing and this understanding of security should be a wider topic of general conversation in the public sphere. This kind of information is pretty sensitive and the fact it is so readily available should be alarming. Just an interesting side thought, it would be interesting to hear about the steps and precautions that people have taken in order to perhaps limit the information shared about individuals. Finally the part about information and images of yourself being uploaded outwith your control is also very interesting. It kind of seems as this digital and ever connected world progresses we almost have to kind of accept that there will times when we will have no control about the content shared about our identites. I feel this should be a lot more concerning than people understand upon the surface as this is particularly terrifying in regards to the ethics of our understanding of personal identity. Very good article, a lot of discussions and interesting ideas to take away.Aidancc (discuss • contribs) 11:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload
The vast amount of information available online is a very helpful tool but can certainly be overwhelming and a distraction, so it is important to adapt to this and find ways to deal with the information overload. When searching for something online, it is easy to become swamped with too much information or information that is irrelevant, so refining searches and limiting use of unnecessary sites online is helpful. It is a challenge sometimes to not get distracted by information online, and there are certainly times when I procrastinate and get drawn into clicking one thing after another that I was never even interested in until I saw it. App and social media notifications that buzz or make a noise is also a constant distraction, even if it directs you to a message on social media for a few seconds, you can then become absorbed and distracted by other things you see in that time, which then distract you for longer. In a way these distractions have allowed me to exercise my willpower, or I will use methods like turning my phone to silent. I am usually able to pull myself away from the online world if I need to get work done for example. I then allow myself to look at something entertaining online if I have done a certain amount of work as a sort of prize.

I try to set myself goals and time limits in order to feel in control of the overload of information. I will make an effort to not look online sometimes. This is a concept that Boyd (2012) talks about, as in her own experience the fact that she is ‘always-on’ does not mean she always checks online or is always contactable as this can shift her out of certain contexts that she wants to take part in (p.72). She also argues that people consciously need to give themselves ‘off-time’ from the online sphere, which I feel I do when trying not to get distracted from the offline world.

The Wikibook Project is continuously being researched, added to and discussed so it does take up a lot of time and includes a lot of workflow. I try to cope with this individually by writing out plans for what work needs to be done and working on certain things for certain amounts of the day, everyday. This helps to stop me becoming overwhelmed and keeps my objectives clear. Heavy workflow is combatted in the group by splitting work up between people, categorising topics to be worked on, and making a plan and schedule to space work out.

Bibliography

Boyd, D. (2012). Participating in the always-on culture. In M. Mandiberg (Ed.), The Social Media Reader (pp. 71-76). New York: NYU Press.

GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 14:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Ex#3

 * Hi Gail, I enjoyed reading your wiki post as I could relate to what you have said greatly. I also wrote in my own post about how often I get distracted from doing work by notifications from my phone. I like your point also about how easy it is to get sucked in to mindless content that you never intended to because this is very true for me also, often my 10 minute breaks from doing important tasks end up as hour long breaks as I’m drawn into the overwhelming content the internet has to offer. I also like your point about using the internet as a sort of prize when you choose to spend some time away from it, in my own post I spoke about the feeling of missing out and the almost relief you can feel when we go back online. Do you feel like you are missing out on something when you come offline or are you able to full concentrate on your work without it being on your mind? I like your point when you agree with boyd because I too felt like I saw a lot of my own usage patterns in the examples she gave, such as having our phones beside our beds when we sleep as an example of being “always-on.” I spoke in my own post about how, for me at least, the accessibility and availability of internet in increasing places has become almost habitual for after years of use, it is something I do almost unconsciously so I do find it difficult to take breaks from it like you do. I too, often feel like the information available online can be somewhat overwhelming, but also like you said the most important factor in dealing with this is our own attitudes to our internet usage, it’s only overwhelming if we are in the position to be overwhelmed perhaps. Your idea to refine our own searches and limiting our use is interesting as it could possibly be helpful in reducing the extent to which the internet is a distraction. But I was wondering, when you take time away from the internet do you feel a sense of relief from the constant information overload? Or do you feel the difficulty of repressing a habit of using the internet aimlessly (like I do)? GemmaCampbell (discuss • contribs) 19:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Your post is easily relatable as I do feel the same way about being distracted. Every app now has a buzzing sound to make you aware of anything new that happened or if you have a notification which makes it worse. Sometimes, when I'm doing work I find myself constantly distracted by a buzz announcing that I have a new message or that someone mentioned me in a comment. If I have a lot of work to do, I can easily ignore it but if not it is too distracting for me. I sometimes end up on my phone looking at my social media accounts without even noticing it, it is an automatic gesture for me. I do the same thing as you when I manage to spend a long time off my phone to focus on my work, I do like to reward myself after by watching a show or going on Facebook for example. The internet has become this essential tool that we can't seem to live without. I do also have the fear of missing out on certain information or discussions if I'm too far away from my phone which is quite worrying as I should be able to go on about my business without worrying about what is happening online. It is helpful to set goals for yourself about how long you can go without using your phone or getting distracted by all those information.

Clarabiswiki (discuss • contribs) 15:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)



Your argument about distraction served us by digital and social media is definitely engaging and understandable. I think every social media user can relate to it in spite of how strong their willpower is. I am also guilty of breaking my workflow for checking my Facebook account in search of the freshest news and end up spending hours on looking at irrelevant cat videos, fall compilations or memes. Counting how much time I wasted on scrolling down Facebook page makes at least alarmed. 'Digital procrastination' is a real problem for me but even knowing that it is hard not have my phone near me when I try to do my academic work. The reason is because I'm constantly 'on - line' in the sense of being available for people to communicate with me through text, phone call or Facebook message.

I appreciate your point about making this 'digital procrastination' a prize after accomplishing a task. There is a sense of gratification coming from accessing our social media accounts. Therefore, information can be seen as an escape from dull reality gaining the access to multiple worlds, often worlds that belong to other people. There is nothing with it, it can be often comforting and enhancing as long as we don't loose ourselves in it.

Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 19:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gail, in the boyd reading she also talks about how people are able to control the way they distribute their time between the online and offline which you do with setting time limits and rewards. I do similar things too and think it is an effective way of coping with the workload. What you said about social media notifications and becoming absorbed with messages is something I struggle with too as I don't want people to feel like I'm ignoring them, even though I know I should just get on with work. This constant flow of information can be overwhelming and we are all learning to adapt to this technology. EmilymDaniel (discuss • contribs) 17:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4 Wikibook Project Reflective Account
The Wikibook project encouraged my group to engage with one another to make sure we were working towards the same aim and producing a coherent and well-structured collaborative piece. We used the discussion page for our book a lot in order to set out a plan, as well as allowing us to share our own individual ideas and asking the rest of the group what they thought. We also used the discussion page to help one another by linking tutorials for certain things we needed to know when making the Wikibook, or by suggesting possible readings or websites that could provide helpful information for what we were writing about. The discussion page was purposeful so that it was clearer for the members to read and focus on it. Some members of our group also discussed with people working on other Wikibook projects as a means to collaborate on information for topics that overlapped. Sometimes this meant that one person was doing a bit of research for someone else, but also meant that we had better engagement with other groups and could see how different groups were tackling the topics.

We also met up for several face-to-face meetings which was very helpful as we could talk more in depth about our ideas. In the first meeting we set out a plan of what all our topics were going to be, who was going to research them and what their approaches to the topic would be. We looked over topics from the module and picked out certain theories to talk about. This made sure we were all focusing on different topics, were relating back to the relevant themes of the module, and discussing the specific topic of ‘technology as an extension of self’ that we had been given. In the second meeting, there was a good level of peer support as we talked about issues we had come across, how we would tackle them, and taught one another how to do certain more technical things on the Wikibook page. It helped to discuss these things in person so we could set things out visually and make sure everyone was clear on what they had to do. In comparison to the discussion page, more could be discussed in a less amount of time and more ideas were being put forward perhaps because there was less censorship of thought so ideas flowed more freely. However, there were more distractions and times where we would go off topic.

The Wikibook collaboration is a good example of the uses of Web 2.0 that involves participation and interactivity to create a collective intelligence. It felt as though Wikibooks and this project demonstrated our individual knowledge and research which I felt was beneficial as Lévy (1999) wrote about how collective intelligence should harness and encourage the power of individual thought rather than becoming lost in a mass of ideas (p.17). I feel that we emphasised our own ideas through our own knowledge and individual readings and research while working together on the plan and writing the topics, so the final product was a successful collaboration.

Lévy, Pierre (1999) Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s Emerging World in Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books

GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 21:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading your comment and I think it raises many important aspects of working on Wikibook project. I agree that the assessment relied on understanding the notion of collective intelligence. I've got similar impression in relation to it. Definitely, discussing the issues and being able to see them from different perspective through relation with other students helped a lot to ground the knowledge we briefly touched at the lectures. In my opinion, creative discussion motivated students to do the set academic readings in order to make our arguments stronger. However, I would agree that face - to - face meetings were not really that helpful as not everyone were able to participate. But I appreciate your point that face - to - face contact is sometimes necessary in order to organise a complex plan of work. Therefore, you make the point that direct contact with other people is not as overrated as it might seem in the digital era. Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 11:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)
The introduction section is incredibly well-written, and summarises some of the points which follow. I think that a concerted effort could have been made to narrativize the chapter before proceeding to the discussion proper. The overall structure that follows is well thought out, and evidences deliberation, delegation and timely organisation. Coverage of many of the salient issues surrounding the relationship between technology and self are included, although the overall feel of the chapter tends towards high-end description, rather than analysis, debate and argument.

That said, some of the sections are incredibly detailed and well written. Where theorists are listed, often it is the case that the coverage is characterised by a list of accomplishments next to some biographical and bibliographical detail – without going into discussion and application of the theories themselves. Here, you have managed to avoid the trap of biographical list, but the movement towards discussion and application of the theories could have been more detailed and applied to the issues under discussion in the chapter.

Some of the sections are really well written, but lack evidence of research – particularly in drawing from any peer-reviewed material, which is essential to helping establish a written argument. The whole section on “Forms of self-representation” for example, has large chucks of text that contain no reference to this kind of material (although, to be fair, there are some interwiki links apparent). Again drawing from this section as an example, there could have been more use made of interwiki links to other chapters.

This could have benefitted the chapter enormously. Such interwiki links could have been extended to include more reference to other chapters in the book, such as connecting your subsection on “distrust of AI” and “newspapers facing decline” to the chapters on Online/real-life divide and news, evidence and memory respectively. This could also be useful in relation to interwiki links on the same chapter: for example, the whole section on blog/online diaries – I would have thought this would follow on quite neatly from the discussion of Jill Walker Rettberg’s work, particularly in relation to her book Blogging! (This section didn’t have a single link or reference, and where the relevance to concepts in this chapter may be considered self-evident to the author, it is the author’s job to connect these ideas through argumentation).

Later sections (including the material on dating sites, gaming and video) are much stronger in this regard, and do all of the necessary things outlined above that are missing from other sections.

Overall, reasonably well put together, especially considering the number of total students working on the chapter.


 * 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


 * 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.


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

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content to an appreciable standard (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Good engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of discussion pages using deployment of judgement relating to key issues, concepts and procedures