User talk:Harry1875

Hey, I am working on a wikibooks project as part of a team with everyone that is in my workshop. Should be good.Harry1875 (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1 What is a good wiki?
For me in order to have a good wiki the key will be good communication between groups, especially between classes if we are working on the same projects. From past experiences I have learned that collaboration in a group requires a fair deal of effort but once solid communication is established it makes everything a whole lot easier.Harry1875 (discuss • contribs) 17:55, 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. N. B. In this case, a very similar response to another student.


 * 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.


 * This post is at the upper end of this grade band, but I ought to clarify that obviously a lot of this grade descriptor isn't of immediate relevance here. 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 I think the issue (as well as in your comments) is that you need to write more - the way the you build detail into your argument is to explore the ideas to hand, and attempt to solicit engagement from others in discussion. Additionally, making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would go a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, as you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this will make a considerable difference.


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 17:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Morgaine Sinclair (Mmmorgaine) I agree with your point, communication is key in making a successful project Mmmorgaine (discuss • contribs) 17:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Completely agree with your point Harry1875 that communication is key to the success of group work. In the case of Wiki*edia projects the platform allows simple communication between its users, this may be more difficult on other digital/social media. LewisCollie (discuss • contribs) 19:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

(Comment) Totally agree with you. However, it has to be said that in platforms such as wikipedia, where everyone can edit or comment, an excess of editing or participation could be against the group as they might not find a common cause. AngelSpaniard (discuss • contribs) 11:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2 Visibility and Data Trails
For me personally I would love to build a career out of working online. I love the way social media has expanded in recent years and how much easier it is to connect with old friends and new people across the internet. I therefore have made myself active on many different online social media channels such as Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Youtube and Whatsapp. These are channels I use to interact with others and have used to build bonds with people that have similar interests. I like to think of myself as highly visible on the internet, and try to promote my social medias in as many places as possible in order to expand the level of my visibility. I have even built some bonds on gaming websites such as Steam and PSN and have many counterparts on Twitter that I have met through these sites. I feel that in this day of age the more people you interact with and create relationships with the easier it will be to engage in conversations with others in every day life.

There is quite a lot of information about me online, and I have used my social media so much I am the first person that comes up when you search my name. I am not sure how to keep control over this so instead I focus on ensuring that I do not to upload private information, such as my address or information details.

Looking further into what Data Trails are I found an interesting perspective here [Digital Footprint] and through this article found this piece. I found this very helpful in understanding further about both the positives of finding your footprint on the internet and also gives good warnings of the dangers one might face if they are not careful on the internet.

--Harry1875 (discuss • contribs) 13:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Harry, I'm also a fan of social media and how it's evolved and expanded over the past few years. Whilst I'm not a gamer myself (unless you count Pokemon), many of my friends are, and I find the connections made over sites like Steam to be a positive use of online communication. It's good to be aware of what we post online as privacy is hard to keep in such a publicly accessible place like Facebook. Also, great job on inserting pictures and html links, I'm yet to attempt that myself Mmmorgaine (discuss • contribs) 17:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Harry! You write of how you have 'many counterparts on twitter' who you have met through these sites. I am curious as to whether you simply mean you have grown to know people through these websites, or if you mean you have met them in person? I presumed you were referencing offline interaction upon initial reading, and it gave me a lot to think about. I realised I have experienced this, in a way, without realising, as I did not really think about it as a distinct or isolated social practice. The people I engage with online tend to operate within the offline word in similar circles to me, and I think I often assume people who I haven't met will be people I bump into eventually, rather than intangible entities which I have access to exclusively through technology. I am unsure if this is relevant to your ideas but you did inspire ideas I had not previously considered, are are perhaps something you could also explore! Lucystewpid (discuss • contribs) 11:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Lucy! It is a bit of both, my friends from high school and previous jobs follow me on Twitter and I feel it is the easiest way to stay in contact with them and see how they are doing. I've also formed bonds with strangers, now friends, that I simply connected with on Twitter. I am a massive sports fan, in particular football, and I go to a lot of Hibs games, the team I support. I feel I have joined the Hibs community on Twitter, just by following a lot of fans who in return followed me back and we often interact and discuss the games. However from this I have formed a few close relationships with these people and we have met up to travel to matches together, and we would never had met if we both didn't tweet so much. It is a bit strange at first but it is something to put a lot of thought into doing; because you never know, you could meet a new best friend online, I've certainly formed some great bonds! I hope this answered your question. --Harry1875 (discuss • contribs) 15:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload
As with many students in modern day life I feel procrastination is a major issue, and I feel it is primarily due to technological advances and the ever growing internet. The volume of information you can find on the internet is phenomenal and near incomprehensible.

The most prominent distractions are undoubtedly social media outlets. For myself in particular I find it very difficult to limit my time on Twitter or Facebook and near impossible not to spend a good period of time a day catching up with Youtube videos I have not yet watched. There is something very addictive in absorbing new information or forms of entertainment on these sites everyday and keeping in touch with what is currently topical on the internet. Every time I refresh my timeline I read something I haven't before and or am reminded of something I may have forgotten about. It is really effective also in keeping in contact with what is happening around the world; with the "Trending topics" tabs on both Facebook and Twitter it is easy to keep in the loop.

I feel this aspect of new information being uploaded everyday gives the data a vibe of being fresh. You want to keep building your knowledge and keeping in the loop, it even gives you topics of things to discuss in person with friends and family.

Aside from social media the stretch of information is dazzling. Anything you can think of can comfortably be found on the internet and you have room to research it further learn in depth about anything that you take an interest in. I would personally say this is healthy, as not many questions go unanswered, however it is hard not to spend time learning more about off topic things, which in part can lead to work being put off or avoided. There are not any prominent strategies I can think of to avoid procrastination. As a curious person it is difficult to distance myself from the knowledge of what people are doing when it is readily available for me.

Being honest procrastination has somewhat hindered the progress made across all my modules this semester, including this one. However my group for our wikibook page had an in depth discussion today on what we wish to write about in the project and broke it down into sections. With now having a focus, and other people who are active and committed to creating a solid Wikibook I feel it will be easier to remain on task and avoid the temptation of procrastination.

Harry1875 (discuss • contribs) 17:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments
I think you've written some really insightful comments here. I agree that procrastination is a definite issue for anyone, and that sometimes the range of information on the internet can be overwhelming. Having said that, I believe sites like Wikibooks can be extremely useful in streamlining research.

I also like your honesty regarding how your procrastination has affected your modules, and I don't think you're alone on that front. In reference to the wikibooks project, I feel keeping to the wiki*edia sites can keep focus, especially now that we have a better grasp of the platform. Because of this I already find it easier to use and it's actually quite satisfying to contribute to something that I had previously only consumed.

Finally, I would add that there is far more on the web than we may even realise, its potential is almost limitless. Whether this is an entirely good thing remains a contentious issue, but the fact is that we can only readily access less than 10% of the content on there, really makes you think how massive the beast must be.

LewisCollie (discuss • contribs) 10:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
First and foremost I felt this task was very different to any assessment I have done before. It was very unique in the way it was set up and run, focusing primarily on contributions and less so on actual content and this was a strange experience for me.

I think that the most efficient and productive part of the assignment was the discussion we had in person. In this discussion we covered all that we were going to cover in the wiki chapter that we were writing and this platform we set up gave us a more clear vision of what we were working towards. We distributed evenly who was going to do what in relation to the chapters, with the full knowledge that we would assist one another when required to do so.

I feel that Surowiecki best summarised the efficiency of us all working together. He studied the idea of ‘wisdom in crowds’ in which he gave his opinion that even if everyone in a group isn’t entirely clued up on a topic they can still come up with some great ideas. The fact that a lot of us were lost at first was evident, however after we started discussing the project it made more and more sense to the point that we all had a clear path and direction to which we were headed. Surowiecki’s suggested ‘Under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent, and are often smarter than the smartest people in them.’ I felt this was a good summary of my experience with the project; at first I was lost when starting out but after discussing the project in a group we managed to make it more understandable together.

As I addressed in an earlier topic on my discussion, I feel that communication is the key to success when working in a group. I felt at first the communication was somewhat lacking in our project, however after we started getting our heads into it communication was excellent. Members of the group were constantly updating one another on what they were doing in regards to their section of the project, and participants were actively looking for methods to enhance everybody else’s experience. For example, one of the members on our chapter had asked on a few help forums on what was the best method to reference on a Wikibook page. After finding what he found was the best method he shared that within the group and everyone in the group started using it. Also a different member of the group found that they were very good at inserting photos and other images onto the page so offered to help anyone else with that, if they were struggling to do so.

I have always been confident in my writing, and actively write sport articles for the public eye, so did not find that the project changed the way I present information. I did however learn to adapt to writing on a new platform, which had a lot of different tools from other websites I have used. I feel it was a lot more complex than other websites, probably overly so. When I compare it to a website such as Wordpress I really do wonder why the functions on Wikibooks needs to be so formula based instead of a simple copy and paste style format. Harry1875 (discuss • contribs) 11:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments
Hey Harry, I enjoyed reading this post. I too agree that it was very unusual having contributions and engagement to be worth more than the content we produced itself.

I liked the points you made from Surowiecki because they are very accurate especially in regards to this subject. I was also very lost when first starting the project but communication really was the key element in helping to make the project a success. If it wasn't for many people in the group I really wouldn't have understood even how to navigate through Wiki*edia as much as I did. I think a lot of people felt the same. Hence why the discussion pages played an important role in keeping on top of things.

The engagement between the groups online was very effective. At first I thought it would be a bit difficult as we hadn't all met in person but I really feel that the way people checked and updated the page regularly was beneficial in making sure the work was done to a good standard.

I would say writing on Wikibooks was very different than writing on anything else we have used before- just because of the different coding and tools which made it as complex as it was but it has been interesting writing on a different platform- not sure I would say I prefer it to the more mainstream media just yet though! Tamoloriiii (discuss • contribs) 18:38, 16 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.


 * Very Poor. Your contribution to the book page gives a deficient brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a qualified familiarity with concepts associated with your subject, and the grasp of conceptual, factual and analytical issues tends to be limited and insecure. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes lack a secure basis.

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