User talk:GemmaCampbell

Hello, I am using this as part of an educational class project to understand how people utilize wikibooks. GemmaCampbell (discuss • contribs) 13:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1
What makes a good wiki? GemmaCampbell (discuss • contribs) 13:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I often navigate Wikipedia pages as a consumer of the content already created, but scarcely do I participate in any form of online collaboration outside of social media platforms. This is the first time I have opened a wiki account and intended to become a content creator. My previous experience of collaboration online has been done mainly through social media, but not to any great extent as it has often just been briefly sharing ideas through Facebook group chats which we intend to discuss further in real life. This is the first time I've properly begun to engage in any form of online collaboration for university work. Up until this point, I have very much been a consumer of any online content, rather than the creator of anything substantial.

I expect my experience of social media platforms and Wikipedia to be very different. The idea of having to create and put your ideas into the wiki sphere can be daunting. The increased accessibility and lack of ownership over the content I will produce, I expect will make my experiences of wiki to be very different from my engagement with social media, where what I post is very much mine and for the most part, only available for people I have chosen as friends to see.

The differences between the navigation of social media platforms and the navigation of Wikipedia is probably what has put me off creating an account in the past, social media automatically appeals more to me as I perceive it to be more accessible with a more user friendly layout. I often saw Wikipedia as difficult to engage with and navigate due to its layout, which has driven me to take the easy root and settle being a consumer of content up until this point.

However, I do believe sharing idea openly in wiki discussions could be a much more effective form of creating some form of collective intelligence. GemmaCampbell (discuss • contribs) 22:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wiki Exercise #1


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


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


 * This post is at the lower end of this grade band, so there’s clearly room for improvement here. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and (especially for this, perhaps, the Understanding) criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets. Less instrumentally, and more in relation to this particular post, I think that an extended discussion about ownership and authorship would be really useful to move definitely from descriptive tendencies to more critical and engaged argument.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are especially 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), and that you have done this in long comment posts (in some cases, your comments are longer than people's posts!). Keep this up!

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments
I agree with you when you talk about Wikipedia being hard to navigate. I think that it is very easy to consume the information on Wikipedia as it's something that a lot of people are used to doing. I've been consuming Wikipedia since primary school and I think that because of this, I've become very familiar with its layout. I know how the information is presented and categorised, thus I find it simple and clear to navigate. However, in terms of producing content, Wikipedia can appear quite daunting, which may be due to the fact that it is presented very formally or, much like yourself, because I've never used it as a platform to share ideas. Until this module, I wasn't even aware that people used Wikipedia to share ideas out with the collaborative pages I'm used to consuming. I also agree with you when you talk about Wikipedia's privacy settings compared to social media and the idea of the content we produce here not really being ours. However, I would like to ask what exactly you mean by wiki discussions possibly being a much more effective form of collective intelligence. Do you think moving a discussion from Twitter or Facebook to a site which isn't primarily a social networking site, makes the collective produce a more intellectual discussion? CaitlinCarbury (discuss • contribs) 20:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gemma, I like the point you made about using Wikipedia mainly as a consumer of already delivered content because I too was the same before taking part in this project. You're right about the the wiki sphere being more daunting than posting on Facebook and Twitter for example, because it is quite strange that someone is able to edit and change what you have posted and I find that is really intrusive and unusual compared to other online platforms. Wikipedia is definitely a lot more difficult to engage with because its layout it not very user friendly or appealing which is quite off putting and why I haven't really engaged with it in the past either. Perhaps if Wikipedia put more effort into making this site more eye catching and simplistic for its consumers, they would end up having a lot more producers on their sites for sure. Tamoloriiii (discuss • contribs) 18:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I like your inspection of your own social media usage in the past and how it relates too the topics and concepts you have been reading about.Aidancc (discuss • contribs) 20:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2
To be completely honest, I don’t really know how visible I am online. Though there are multiple forms of privacy settings, especially on social media sites it would be difficult for me to gauge just who has or is viewing the content that I put online. The form my visibility takes online would be characterised by my use of multiple social media platforms, on which over several years I have shared content about my life without thinking too much into it. I have no doubt that if someone really wanted to they could find out quite a lot about me online especially as often I have created accounts on different platforms and uploaded personal information often unthinkingly which I am no longer engaged in but is still accessible to many. Thinking back on posts I have made in the past or posts I have been tagged in I have probably shared most of the important details and moments of my life without a second thought. Though there are various way of privatising the content we share online there could be other ways of being visible such as through details our friends share about us; this could especially be said for sites such as Facebook as well as Twitter where often people do not privatise their tweets but instead allow their thoughts and opinions to enter the public sphere. I would like to say that the content I share online is only shared with people I have known in real life but that is most likely not the case. There’s also to be taken into consideration not only that people in your everyday life but instead the companies themselves often store our information without our knowledge, I remember a few there was an uproar when it came out that the snaps we sent to each other on snapchat did delete after a few seconds of sending but only to the person you sent it to and in fact snapchat often saves and keeps these snaps without the user being aware to it. There’s also the issue with location services on smartphones, often these can pinpoint your exact location and can ask you questions based on this without the user being aware that their location services are even turned on. I don’t doubt that someone with the know-how and authority could find my location if they so desired. In matter of fact, I probably have much less control over my own content than I would like to imagine, when I think about how easy it would be for someone to screenshot my images or details and share them without my knowledge. It is in doing this wikiproject and having people reply to content I’ve post which has made me realise my online presence and the way in which people can interact with it, and has made me question about the privacy of my content which I have shared so extensively through social media over the years. So far I’ve talked about visibility in terms of self-presentation and online identity however there are also issues of visibility in terms of who can see your online activity which you never intended to be shared. For example, the passing of the investigatory powers bill which allows various organisations to view citizen web history for a number of reasons. GemmaCampbell (discuss • contribs) 17:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments
Hey Gemma, firstly I really like your point about not knowing who it is that is viewing our content that we produce online, I, like most people have no idea who looks at my stuff. Don't you think that it is strange that we carelessly let other people view our lives without a second thought about the implications of it? I agree with your point of not thinking too much about what you are putting out there because I am the same and I think most people would agree that thoughts of who's going to view this do not really go through our minds, you post something because you want to and don't overthink it before pressing 'post' or 'send'.

It often comes to my attention that nothing is completely private on the internet. We upload things on to a platform that we do not own and therefore have to obey the rules and regulations put in by others. Our lives on the internet are never truly our own then would you say? I found recently that even with full privacy settings up, someone who I didn't know or have as a friend liked one of my pictures from a while ago which really bothered me and most of us just would just overlook this and accept it. Privacy settings should be clearer in my opinion, what do you think? So even I cant say for sure how visible I am online because I cannot confidently say who it is that is seeing things I put up and like you said, someone with the abilities could find you no problem and this should bother us. Emmamackison (discuss • contribs) 12:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Replies
Hi Emma, thank you for replying to my post. When I think about it, it is strange that a lot of us post an extensive amount about ourselves online before we consider who could see it. Often, or at least from what I’ve experienced, people don’t usually give a second thought to something they post online which could possibly change someone’s opinion of them until it comes back to bite them. I also agree privacy settings should be simpler, only a couple days ago I discovered information on my facebook profile was set to public instead of private without me having even realised. It is a bit unsettling how indifferent people can be about having their information to readily available to anyone. GemmaCampbell (discuss • contribs) 22:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3

 * There is so much information now available at the click of a button for anyone who owns a smartphone or any form of portable device. No matter where we are as long as we are connected to wi-fi, which is now available in many places for free, we can pretty much find out anything we need to via the internet. For a lot of us also who own a smartphone, there is a constant pre-occupation with our phones, we are always aware that any moment someone could attempt to contact us or we may need to check notifications from social interactions via social media. It’s in reading Danah Boyd’s chapter on the “always-on” culture of daily life that I realised my own habits and how I participate in this culture to a great degree. I rarely, if ever, have taken time to turn off my phone and stay away from the internet, and even in the rare times that I do it I worry I am missing out on something. Boyd states that often we assume information is always available to us, which I can also contest as whenever I have been abroad and without roaming data I often bring out my phone unconsciously to search for information only to be frustrated when I can’t.
 * But like Boyd I do also see the benefits in living in a more digitally connected world, in moving to university I moved away from my home town and a couple friends whom I don’t see regularly but we maintain contact almost constantly. In terms of this information available online being a distraction, honestly a lot of the time I fall foul to it and do end up being distracted and neglecting important tasks as I waste time reading useless information. I rarely take time away from these distractions and instead plan my work around them, often I get side-tracked but I do try to remain in the task at hand. I think it’s so difficult for me to just disconnect from the internet and all its availabilities for fear of missing out on something, there’s the thought that I’ll miss out on something important when in reality I know that if anything that important where to happen it’s not going to come in the shape of a twitter notification. There’s also the issue that after years of being online and almost growing up with it, it has become a habit. I pick up my phone without realising and my second thought in a lot of situations is simply to google it.
 * The demands of the wikibook project has slowed down my workflow to some extent as I am still trying to figure out how to work wikibooks properly as a contributor as well as doing the readings and the research I need to be able to add to the wikibook page itself. In coping with this, I haven’t had the option but to just continue engaging with wikibooks in the hopes my understanding of it’s uses improves. GemmaCampbell (discuss • contribs) 16:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments
Hi Gemma. I enjoyed reading this entry, particularly your reference to Danah Boyd's work and how it applies to your own life. What about her work in particular inspired you to include it in your Wikibook entry? I found your comments on missing out interesting. I think in this day and age, the majority of people have that fear. That could explain why we are all addicted to our devices, we are all nosey! You commented that you found some aspects of Wikibooks challenging, what would you say was the most difficult aspect of this platform? Moving on to the group project, do you feel that you are prepared? Have you encountered any major distractions in terms of the group task? Misslouisepark (discuss • contribs) 19:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Louise. Thanks for replying to my post. What inspired me to include danah boyd's work in my post was my surprise as i read and could recognise my own habits in the examples she gave as examples of "always-on" culture and it almost shocked me into realising just how much i do rely on my phone in particular for a wealth of information. I'm glad that others feel that feeling of missing out when away from their phones or the internet also. I think i sometimes wikibooks to be a bit confusing due to the amount of text, such as when we edit others posts to reply etc, it can, for me anyway as someone who's never done this before, be a bit overwhelming. In terms of the group project, we are at the stage of working on our individual readings and topics in order to garner knowledge before we can concisely, but hopefully soon, begin to sort out and add to our wikibook. Distractions for me would probably just come in form of other work that i have due which may take up more time than i assumed and eat into time i've allocated to work on my wikibook work but other than that it is going quite well. GemmaCampbell (discuss • contribs) 22:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gemma, I enjoyed reading your post. I found the point you made about rarely turning your phone off to be particularly interesting. I too rarely turn my phone off, and I haven’t really reflected on why that is until now. I think that I subconsciously have a fear of missing out, so much so that I don’t even like the thought of my phone dying on me when I’m out. I think this has a lot to do with the concept of our phones becoming companions to us. Sherry Turkle talks about how by trying to communicate with others online we are subsequently isolating ourselves from the world around us. Would you say technology and more so “always-on” culture has created a society which doesn’t know how to be alone anymore? Do you think that social media has painted being alone as something to be avoided? Or is it more a fact of why be alone when at the click of a button you could have interaction?

I too made note in my own post regarding danah boyd’s work, and the assumption of information always being available to us. As you said, when I cannot get access to the information that I assumed I could have, I get very frustrated and honestly feel a little nervous when I realise that if I want information I’m going to have to actually talk to someone. I personally, ask Google before I ask a person for information and I think that this is one of the main disadvantages of living in a culture so submerged in digital media; everyday interaction with strangers becomes somewhat of a dreaded challenge –a last resort when technology fails. Would you say that by constantly asking Goolge for information, we lose some confidence in our ability to gather information in “real” life?


 * I also agree with the points you make about working around the distractions instead of taking time away from them. Perhaps the reason that we find it so hard to completely turn away from the online world is because a lot of the time even the thing we’re trying to focus on is within the digital sphere. This can be seen in universities especially, the majority of our lectures, readings, and information regarding university life is uploaded online. Therefore making it hard to ignore the vast amount of information that is available to us in the next tab over. I think in this sense we truly are “always-on”, we work, watch, write, record, communicate and entertain online, even when we are not necessarily aware of it –it’s here that I think danah boyd’s blurring between the “real” and the “virtual” truly comes into play. Would you agree?

I once more agree with your response in how you are coping with the wiki project as I feel that I am in a similar situation. It’s just taken some time to processes exactly what it all means, and as we continue to use the platform hopefully our understanding and engagement will improve. CaitlinCarbury (discuss • contribs) 17:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Gemma, I really like the points you made about how smartphones contribute to the 'always-on' culture we have these days and it is also something I touched upon in my own discussion. Constant access to the internet definitely has its advantages as you say, but I do feel that it can become a distraction when I am trying to focus on work. Whenever my phone goes off, for whatever reason, I find it extremely difficult to resist the urge to immediately check what it is. If I am doing important work then the only way for me to avoid checking my phone every 5 minutes is to either switch it to silent or off.
 * Another way I feel that the Internet can bombard people with information overload are the constant links to different pages or sites. For example, I could be on the BBC website reading an article about something that is related to what I am working on at that time and it will have some links to other news stories that may be relevant as well. However, with each click away from the original story, they become less and less relevant and it often amazes me how quickly I can go from reading something relevant to reading about a bus breaking down in Zimbabwe. Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 12:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4
Through this module, I was able to for the first time work on and engage more thoroughly with than usual Wiki sites, especially in the creation of the wikibook. Engaging with others and contributing on wikibooks was a new experience for me, and one which was very different from engagement on other sites and social media platforms. I struggled at the beginning to gain a grasp on the navigation of wikibooks due to its majorly text-based layout, and it took me a while to get to a point where I was more comfortable with engaging with wikibooks. I gained knowledge of how just wiki sites work, particularly when it came to managing the layout of my page when I would have to refer to text templates in the creations of headers and references. I know feel much more informed about how a wiki page was put together whenever I am on the site.

Thus, I gained a few skills through this in understanding how a wiki site works and is put together, moreover I also feel like my interaction with wikibooks helped further my knowledge, through discussion, of the topics covered in the lectures. Commenting on to open up a discussion, as well as simply reading others posts about the same topic I had posted on allowed me to expand my understanding and to explore new ideas proposed by others I would have not thought of by myself. This also, through others experiences and real life examples, allowed me to understand the theories we covered in lectures in a real life sense. However, though this was very beneficial I also experienced difficulties in this form of collaboration and communication. I found it difficult to portray my full knowledge in a small sections weekly and as well in the wikibook project, I felt like I was unable to fully display what I had learned over the weeks of the module as I was limited by not only topic matter but within that an even smaller sub topic which often overlapped and repeated with others. I also struggled at times with the communication on the wikibook project discussion page as, even after attempts at organisation, I was struggling to find replies and it was difficult to engage in a flowing conversation with replies often taking a while.

Wikibooks in terms of the wikibook project was useful in allowing me to fully focus on the project when on the site, unlike which might have been the case on social media sites. The utilisation of wikibooks also changed the dynamics of communication and interaction online, as previously this for me would be through my social media sites. Wikibooks almost gave a sense of anonymity to a certain extent due to the lack of a profile, and thus I did not consider my online identity as much I would have had this been otherwise. The distractions and implications of profile driven social media where near absent in the collaboration on wikibooks. I also thought that, especially through the collaboration with the wiki project I was able to place the theory of a collective mind in a real life context, and a context in which I was involved and engaged. I saw myself the result of a collaborative process of knowledge sharing and working together to create a whole from the sum of parts. And ts, though I did at times experience difficulties in some areas, was an educational project for me in which I saw the idea of a hive mind play out and was able to contextualise some of the theories we have covered in previous lectures.

Overall, engagements with wikibooks and contribution to an online project was a new experience for me and one which I gained skills as well as this i was able to further understand theories in a new context. I did experience some difficulties with the format in which this was done and felt that the idea of engaging in a content sharing experience could sometimes be undermined by the difficulty in collaboration on this particular platform. However, I feel wikibooks allowed a new insight into online collaboration and an understanding of collective intelligence, the replies I received from classmates as well as readings their posts benefitted me in extending my knowledge. GemmaCampbell (discuss • contribs) 23:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment:

Like yourself, engaging with others and contributing on wikibook was also a new experience for me, I also agree that the experience was very different from other social media platforms. Although I realise wikibooks was suitable for the task at hand in this assessment, I found it was very outdated; perhaps because we are so used to social media and everything being updated on a daily basis? Would you agree with this? I also struggled to navigate the site to begin with but with the help of the “Wiki Mark up” page, I gained more knowledge.

I find your point on expanding your understanding and exploring new ideas due to other peoples posts and thoughts very interesting. Although we learn the topics in lectures and through our own research, I agree that it always helps to hear other peoples thoughts and views on a subject which may help us understand more or bring in new ideas. I also have the same experience as you in terms of work flow, I also felt I couldn’t display my full understanding of everything I felt I had learnt over the module since we were limited to topic matters and sub topics in the wiki book. As I explained in my own “Wiki 4 post” ; I also found it hard to talk about things without overlapping ideas with someone else in my group. My group, like your own found it difficult to communicate over the discussion page. Maybe because we didn’t get notifications therefore didn’t actually know where someone was talking? Therefore we just used “Facebook messenger” to communicate the most.

I also would say I have gained certain skills through wiki which may or may not come in useful in the future, but it was a new experience and I do feel that wiki was the best platform for this task as there were no distractions. ArianneStirling (discuss • contribs) 09:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Gemma, I agree with your point about wikibooks being quite hard to navigate at first due to the text-based nature of the site. I think we are so used to bright colours and pictures and logos on social media that are used to make the platforms easily accessible that it was a bit of a culture shock to use something that in comparison seemed so bland and jam-packed full of information. I also think that because adding pictures and links to a post was a lot more complicated than what we are used to as well (it isn't simply uploading a photo from your files and clicking "post") that this made the experience seem a lot more daunting when we first started out. I agree with you when you talk about how most of the topics overlapped in a number of lectures, but your own sup-topic was too specific to really draw from any of the lecture content which was more vague. I think this is where online research and wiki*edia research came in handy and acted as another resource for finding facts and figures on the sub-topic I was working on. I think you make an interesting point when you talk about placing the concept of a collective or "hive" mind into a real-life context, as I also felt this way when constantly sharing and engaging with other people who were working toward the same goals as me on the site. Cathym97 (discuss • contribs) 11:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I find it interesting that you also found that the wikibook project has helped deepen your understanding of the topics we are learning about in class. I too have taken a lot from this project with regards to the content. The chapter that I worked on was 'persistant connectivity and the fear of missing out' and I felt that a lot of the research I did, was very relevant to my experiences when doing the wikibook. Due to my lack of previous experience on wikipedia I felt it was very difficult for me to navigate around and keep up with all the discussions that were taking place. I constantly needed to be online and checking for updates otherwise I might have missed out on some important information. This links in with what I was learning in class because I did have a 'fear' of missing out and hence felt the need to be connected as much as possible. Rachel Howie (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Media is already a plural term.

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

The glossary is really useful – not quite exhaustive, but good for quick reference purposes. Use of interwiki links in here would have been useful. The references section again evidences research, reading and sharing of resources, although my feeling is that this could have been extended significantly, especially through looking at what other chapters were writing about, and making the connections between there and the arguments here more explicit. Some of the formatting seems to go awry in the middle, so a little more joined-up thinking and a little more effort in presentation there would have been useful.


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

Wiki Exercise Portfolio (Understanding weighted 30%)
Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is overall (and particularly in relation to Understanding and Engagement elements), that should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band, relative to the descriptor


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


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

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content suggests minimally sufficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * 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