User talk:Gvg00001

Wiki Exercise #1: Educational Assignment
Basic rules of tennis

Tennis is a wonderful sport and is also wonderfully simple. Although there are a few basic rules to consider.

It is played on a rectangular court by either two players (singles) or four (doubles). Players stand on opposite sides of a net and use a stringed racket to hit a ball back and forth to each other. Each player has a maximum of one bounce after it has been hit by their opponent to return the ball over the net and within the boundaries of the court. Once a player fails to do any of these three things, their opponent wins a point. The aim is to win enough points to win a game, enough games to win a set and enough sets to win a match. The first person to win six games wins a set, but only if they are leading by two clear games. That means that if your opponent wins five games, you must win the set 7-5, or play a tie-break if the game score reaches six all.

Matches are usually the best of three (women) or the best of five sets (men), although some men's tournaments just play the best of three sets.
 * 1) Gvg00001 (discuss • contribs) 12:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems that you are very familiar with tennis! It would be good if you can tell more about different international competition of tennis because I am always confused by different tennis matches. Are they associate with area? Chuyanlol (discuss • contribs) 12:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! Tournaments are usually organized by three main associations - ATP/WTA, ITF and local federations. ATP (Association of Tennis Professionals) is responsible for the Grand Slams, ATP 1000, ATP 500, ATP 250 and ATP Challenger. ITF is responsible for the Olympics, ITF Futures and Davis Cup/Fed Cup.

ATP is the men's tennis association, while WTA stands for Women Tennis Association.

Hope this helps a bit! Gvg00001 (discuss • contribs) 22:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
Your post describes the rules of tennis, but it would benefit from a greater reflection: Why is this interesting? What's the context for this? Add some links to your discussion to demonstrate your understanding of how wiki markup works and to ensure that interested readers can follow particular links. It's also useful to have specific examples. For example, you could include a Youtube video of highlights of a particularly interesting match. While you've met the quantity of responses, they are not of a good quality. We want to see thoughtful responses to others' posts rather than superficial acknowledgement of their posts.

A post of this standard roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor: Poor. Among other things, poor entries may just offer links without real comment or apparent point. They may offer nothing more than poor-quality synopsis or description of material of dubious relevance. They may have serious clarity problems (including dead links, random graphics) which affect comprehension (or even worse, admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement). They might be off-topic, private trivia, or of unclear relevance. The wiki markup formatting will be of a poor standard. Sprowberry (discuss • contribs) 10:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! I will try to improve my next posts by adding references and videos, but I managed to get here just because I was trying to follow the task given. However, how am I supposed to control the quality of responses that are written by other users? It's not my fault if responds to my post are not good quality, it just doesn't make sense. Gvg00001 (discuss • contribs) 14:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi I was commenting on your responses to other peoples' posts through your contribs page. Bear in mind that engagement is 50% of the wiki exercise portfolio so you need to write more than a sentence when responding to others. Sprowberry (discuss • contribs) 15:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Online Footprint
I try to be visible on the Social media. For example, when I leave home I leave my PC turned on, so I am logged on the whole day. I believe that if people see one is online the chances they contact him are higher, but even if he/she is not on his mobile/PC, can access the messages later on. Like I said, I am available on the social medias so much of information can be accessed on me - photos, posts, etc. People could also Google me if needed. I am not afraid to share publications and posts to the public. I think that if someone wants to harm you they can find a way to do it, even if you try to hide things. I try to control what is in my range of reach. At the moment I am available on Facebook and LinkedIn.

Thanks for reading: Gvg00001 (discuss • contribs) 12:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I find myself to be the opposite of you, trying to keep information to myself. How open are you? For example, is your privacy settings on Facebook on 'public'? And what do you think the purpose is of your person being so public? Or is it just because it's more convenient to not care about changing privacy settings? And how do you think you can 'control' your information, especially once it's public? It's very interesting to read about a person who's attitude towards visibility is entirely opposite to mine, and I'd really like to find out more about your reasons. --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 12:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi ! Well, I still believe life is about living in the moment, in the reality, rather than electronic, based on virtual communications. I think I can control my information very easily - simply, when I don't want to inform anyone, I just don't publish anything. More can be discussed over a cup of tea/coffee :) Gvg00001 (discuss • contribs) 13:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point, ! It seems like the people who share most on social media are the ones trying to prove to the world (and themselves?) what a great time they have. I much prefer the 'living in the moment' idea. But apart from that, I frequently cringe at posts I wrote a few years ago, not because they are particularly bad, but because I don't want to listen to the ramblings my 19-year-old me had to say, I feel very strongly towards minimalism and getting rid of the past, and Facebook wants to shove it in my face! Haha. --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 10:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Gvg00001 (discuss • contribs) 17:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi ! Sometimes when I go back to an old comment I made, I say myself: "Really? Did I say this?". There is nothing wrong with our past, but we live now and we have to step over on whatever had been done. For example, yesterday I ate a piece of cake, today I am gonna get two :)

Hello, much like Chickpeanut, I feel myself trying to be less and less visible in public social media every day. And what I mean by 'public' social media is the type of social media that you're 'friends' with your mum, and the one in which most people post personal details about themselves. As many other Facebook users, I have a couple of 'friends' added that are more 'acquaintances', or rather, 'people whom I've only talked to once in my entire life' than actual friends. The idea that any of these people, or even random strangers could decide one day to check up on my life and go through all of my account, (of course with the ability to do so without me finding out), kind of feels more like stalking than friendly. With these type of social websites I find that the whole 'checking up on someone' has ironically become more anti-social than ever; seeing as people would rather go through your halloween pictures to see what you were doing, what you were wearing and who you were with (etc) instead of actually reaching out by sending a message. This way (and with what we have already discussed in class) I really do feel like what you post is beeing monitored; as if you are constantly being watched. There is a certain degree of fake-ness in Facebook, the way that people monitor exactly what they want others to see that is very unappealing to me (which is why I barely post anything on Facebook and generally like to keep things private). There is a certain pressure in these social medias that I feel it is quite socially demanding in this way; as if you need to prove anything to anyone about who you are, or what you are doing with your life; as if you are trying to make people believe your life is better than theirs. Personally, I really don't like Facebook and I only use it for contacting someone when I need to (seeing as, like you said, most people are online all the time), and I find websites in which you don't necessarily need to be public much more appealing, like through usernames or perhaps a nickname. There is a certain type of reassurance that comes with it, like you can just post whatever you like and not necessarily be 'watched' or monitored by anyone in particular. What is your opinion on this type of media? Are you active on it too, and if so, do you keep things rather more private on them or are you also quite 'public'? --Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 00:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi ! I like your comment! In terms of communicating, yes, i am active to the extent that I exchange information with people that I need in a moment when I need it. But if you check my facebook profile, you could see what I have shared with public and what not. Gvg00001 (discuss • contribs) 9:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Introduction


This is a great and informative page about the current topic - Information overload. The first recorded use of the phrase “information overload” was used by the futurologist Alvin Toffler in 1970, when he predicted that the rapidly increasing amounts of information being produced would eventually cause people problems. Although people talk about “living in the information age,” written information has been used for thousands of years. The invention of the Printing Press a few hundred years ago made it possible to distribute written information to large amounts of people. However, it is only with the advent of modern computers that the ability to create, duplicate and access vast amounts of information has created Information Overload amongst the general population. The root of the problem is that, although computer processing and memory is increasing all the time, the humans that must use the information are not getting any faster. Effectively, the human mind acts as a bottleneck in the process.

Causes
Information Overload is now commonplace in offices around the World. More on the causes for Information overload can be read here. Some of the causes include: - The widespread access to the Web - The ease of sending e-mail messages to large numbers of people - As information can be duplicated for free, there is no variable cost in producing more copies – people send reports and information to people who may need to know, rather than definitely need to know. - Poorly created information sources (especially online).

How the overload spreads?
In an office, the problem of Information Overload spreads like a virus. If one person is suffering information overload, they tend not to process the information they are handling very well.

How to solve the problem?
Although there is no simple solution to the problem of Information Overload, there are some things that can be done to reduce the problem. More on the topic can be read on this link

These include: - Spending less time on gaining information that is nice to know and more time on things that we need to know now. - Focusing on quality of information, rather than quantity. A short concise e-mail is more valuable than a long e-mail. - Learning how to create better information. Be direct in what you ask people, so that they can provide short precise answers. - Single-tasking, and keeping the mind focused on one issue at a time. - Spending parts of the day disconnected from interruptions (e.g. switch off e-mail, telephones, Web, etc.) so you can fully concentrate for a significant period of time on one thing.

Personal experience
Well, I just accept the fact there is a lot of information out there and there's nothing I can do about that. Information is for people and has to be free to access. However, people should learn to get the right information in the right moment, just because this is the way it is. Nowadays, there is too much of everything in life (which can be summed up as 'data' of any kind'). Life is complicated because of all the factors that we have in front of us and people are unhappy. Thus, a balance between getting too informed and caring less about things should exist.

A good example is the comparison between a dog and his owner going out for a walk. The dog sees trees, grass, etc. while watching, whereas his owner sees difficulties, rubbish around the bins and on the grass, etc. The dog is happy, the owner isn't. What's the conclusion? People should learn to accept information selectively in order to maintain their balance, just be the dog.

How do I manage the information around me? I got informed selectively in accordance with my interests...like the dogs :D

Thanks for reading!

Gvg00001 (discuss • contribs) 11:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments
Hey You forget one thing in your comparison: The dog cannot read, or write, or reason; he cannot remember things that happened yesterday very well; he cannot argue for a cause or write Wikibooks assignments; he cannot engage in politics or run a business. In short: the dog doesn't need much information to lead a happy life. All a dog would need to know is: ''Who is my feeding person? Who is my friend? Who is hurting me? Where can I poop?'' I do agree that we try to consume far too much information that isn't even relevant to our own lives, but whether you intended it or not, your comparison falls short of the fact that we are humans with a very sophisticated sense of overcomplicating things. And since everyone is like that, I don't think it would be wise to leave the thinking to a select few, hoping that they will steer our future into the right direction. I'd rather be overloaded and engaged than passive and controlled... If anything, there is a chance that the information overload plays into politicians' & corporations' hands perfectly by making us more and more unable to express dissatisfaction with their practices, hiding relevant information in a storm of funny memes, and making us feel better when complaining about first world problems rather than thinking about real global issues. But I'm again moving to close to being a conspiracy theorist! Just some food for thought ;) --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 17:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your comment! Based on the last sentence your wrote, I can say we are on different diets :D I agree we need to be informed, but don't forget people are not portable hard drives. People are very sensitive creatures who gets easily distracted and out of balance by both positive and negative factors. Have you heard of 'analysis-paralysis'? If one has too much information and really thinks about it in terms of how to perform it in a better manner while doing it, he/she ends up being paralyzed in their actions due to their thoughts. Don't get me wrong - thinking is a good think, but realizing how to use in the right moment is a treasure. Otherwise, we should follow our instincts. contribs 18:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject and what we had to face
Wikibooks as a page for students to create such content like our project was very difficult to understand, especially if we talk about the whole point of the project and its contribution towards our personal development. Referring to Wikibooks specifically, there were several notable barriers for us as ‘newbies’, especially Wiki mark-up. I had some previous experience with HTML, so the Wiki mark-up language was not too big bite for me. However, I realized that it is not the same case with everybody else. Thus, I created the Useful Tips section on the Discussion page, where I did put some of the most common tips in terms of structuring the pages, getting references, creating lists, getting links to external websites, changing font style (bold, italic), importing images and etc.

Our first Wikipedia articles got largely deleted by admins, being considered ‘spam’. This makes it difficult for us as individuals to understand to what extent our posts are relevant to a topic. Then personally I struggled a bit, because my initial post was well-developed small article, and the second one that I did was not so good, but then it reflected on the feedback that I got later on.

However, after all criticism, one can say that Wikibooks was probably the ‘least bad’ choice for a class collaboration of this size, given its unification of other platform’s strengths, such as notifications (Social Media), real-time collaboration (Google Docs), specialization of knowledge (Essays) and online mark-up (Blogs). But still, I think that using Wikibooks AND another form of communication between students (rather than discussion page as I don’t believe it was ever created with the purpose of being a chat page) such as Viber or Whats app. In this way communication would be more effective in future projects, because people tend to be connected these days and chances that they receive a message and read it on one of the mentioned above applications is higher, rather than receiving a notification and getting online on Wikibooks. Something else that would be appropriate to have is more initial offline guidance. A pre-existing structure, such as formatting and referencing guidelines, would have put every contributor on an equal starting level. The way we conducted the project seems unfair and frustrating at best.

On the Wikibooks, we had to coordinate with almost 25-30 different individuals. We had to make sure all our ideas don’t clash, and that was the most difficult part of the exercise. Some people were involved from the first minutes of the project, other joined after a while, and some didn’t contribute at all. Personally, I understood the point of being put in couples of small groups working on the same topic, however, for some people team working was something new. And generally, I believe it was teachers’ responsibility to make sure everybody got understood properly what and how to do it.

The Wiki Project and the module content
Surowiecki is talking about the “wisdom of crowds” and he is referring to the benefits of different opinions. This was helpful in our Wikibooks project only if our chapter (Surveillance and Sousveillance) had been divided into smaller sub-topics so that each student can make his own research. At the same time we had to cope with the time running out and we tried to get to the most accessible information, which is not in all cases the most relevant one. We all know the saying that two head think better than one, but it is hard managing 26 different opinions on the same question, but submitted at different times.

However, Christian Fuchs describes Wikipedia as the ultimate communal space: Everyone is co-creating, accessing and modifying collective knowledge equally. In terms of this, I have to agree that there was some kind of respect to each other and evidences can be found on our discussion page. If anyone asked for help, another who had the answers was always there to help.

Comments
Good point about the HTML experience impacting our use of Wikibooks. I too have had some coding experience but even then it could took me a while to get my head round the formatting and shortcuts of the site! I agree about guidelines being useful, I feel a lot of groups trod on each others toes because they had each interpreted the brief slightly differently. For me I never got any feedback from markers on my comments, therefore have no idea if the structure/content I am using is right or not! Interesting account overall. --WiKirsten (discuss • contribs) 10:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, @WiKirsten! Thanks for your post! How did you manage the project then? How did your individual posts on your discussion page go like since no one gave you guidance on how and what to improve? Gvg00001 (discuss • contribs) 11:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

As a newbie to wikipedia I must admit that it wasn't all that easy for me, especially as it meant I had to learn how to move about Wikipedia while at the same time juggling between the discussion page of the wikibook project and the daily life commitments. Thank you again for creating the tips section, was useful. About the first attempt at wikipedia that we had, well, surely was not comforting in any way seeing that even when we were doing the right thing, for someone else (admins) we were off track. I can say that personally I would have preferred a more guided start to the project though, instead of the couple of wiki exercises, as -although useful- they were very different from what we had to go through during the project's development. Nontheless it was an experience that has given me new skills. Are you sure though it was the "least bad" choice of task we could have been given? I must say that sometimes it felt like organization of it was not the best (as the time we had to develop it was not necessarily taking into account the difficulties of coordinating between members and yet we were required to maintain an exhaustive standard to our work, as we are university students and not primary school). It was challenging, but at the same time I have not witnessed major problems with it, as ideas more than clashing were helping in the creation of the final work, blending in one another. You present an interesting account of the project, which is easy to follow because of the way you divided it into clear subsections, just like in the wikibooks book. I don't think that Fuchs and Surowiecki talk about contrasting things to be honest (suggested by your use of "however") as the wisdom of crowds can benefit the co-creation environment - collective intelligence being what then results in a bigger data bank than the individual alone would be able to put together in the same amount of time. As with cognitive surplus, students worked collaboratively (in free or dedicated time) to the development of this project. A thing that I was hoping for and I was pleasantly surprised to find, as you mention, is the respect that students had for one another and each other's work. I cannot speak for the whole group but the discussion page of the subtopic I worked on is witness of the friendly, collaborative environment that was created. --Juliabutgiulia (discuss • contribs) 17:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment User:Juliabutgiulia! I respect your opinion even though it's a bit contrasting to what I think. Whatever! Best regards! Gvg00001 (discuss • contribs) 11:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I thought your comment regarding communication was quite accurate. I also agree that another messaging service to communicate would have been better as we did not always get notified when being replied to on the discussions page and very quickly conversations could get lost or buried, whereas on another messaging board with a more structured conversation section it would have been easier. Although this could quickly get messy if it was a Facebook group chat for example, as constant messages would cause everyone to mute the chat, there must be some alternative that can also be monitored like Wikibooks was? The big question is coming up with what as there is always the difficulty of access as well. --HoDstripes (discuss • contribs) 16:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I had a look around and found this site which gives tips to collaborating online, and it has a section on how best to communicate with each other to organise. It recommends private forums such as https://www.phpbb.com/ and http://www.simplemachines.org/. This might be helpful in future. --HoDstripes (discuss • contribs) 17:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi HoDstripes! Great thing! I think it would have been very useful during this module! Gvg00001 (discuss • contribs) 11:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi! What you talked about in the wikibook account is also what I am concerned about. At first, I am thrilled that I can contribute to the knowledge through my efforts. But, after my try was published, I also worried about what if the details in my article are not correct? and for this reason, I tend to be very careful and cautious about the wiki entries. But, I am not sure others act like me. Therefore, it would be necessary to establish a quality control system in wikibook. Maybe you and I and others can contribute to this. Kellysun960601 (discuss • contribs) 10:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kellysun960601! I agree with you. There was no quality control over the things we published except the one we did ourselves. In terms of this, we can only understand if we were on the right track just at the end when we get out marks. This doesn't make any sense to me. Gvg00001 (discuss • contribs) 12:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
There's some good evidence of understanding both the content and the purpose of hosting the assignment on Wikibooks with a focus on engagement. You have offered generous feedback on colleagues' posts but relatively little engagement on the talk page with lots of requests for comments with no response. Wiki exercises gradually got better although often abrupt. There's clear evidence of tackling module themes and building critical arguments.

Content (weighted 20%)

 * 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.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, although some ideas and procedures more securely grasped than others
 * evidence of independent reading of somewhat circumscribed range of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument featuring variable depth of understanding
 * satisfactory level of evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * satisfactory level of evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections in discussion);
 * evidence of variable 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)
 * Acceptable engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Limited reflexivity and creativity, and a somewhat insecure management of discussion pages

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 14:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)