User talk:Hayleygil

Hi my name is Hayley. I'm working as part of a group to create a Wiki Book for an educational class project. I'm really looking forward to creating and completing it.

Hayleygil (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)hayleygil

Wiki Exercise #1 - What Makes a Good Wiki?
I use certain social media platforms on a daily basis (typically Facebook and Instagram) mostly to interact with my friends and family. My current experience with Wikipedia, especially posting and contributing on the site, is a lot less frequent. I mostly use Wikipedia to search for information on whichever topics I'm currently researching to gain knowledge on those subjects.

Having said that I have little experience with posting and editing on Wikipedia, I have noticed differences between social media platforms and the aforementioned site in terms of the quality of the content that is being generated. Whilst anyone is able to post and edit on Wikipedia, the information contained within the site aims to be as accurate, informative and non-bias as possible. This differs from social media platforms whereby users are allowed, encouraged even, to voice their own opinions on relevant subject matters. This doesn't necessarily mean that one is better than the other, it just shows that they were created for different purposes regarding the distribution of information.

Wikipedia also allows a space for discussion and engagement with other users and a much wider audience. When we look at social media sites such as Facebook we are, for the most part, confined to content that is shared or produced by our friends. On social media, people are more likely to follow people or pages who have the same/similar mind-sets as they do. This is due to the fact that when someone else has the same opinion as you on a certain topic then you feel as though your opinion is validated and justified. However, Wikipedia offers a 'talk page' which allows users to discuss specific articles (i.e. if an article requires altering) but it shuts down any opportunity for users to express their personal opinions. This reiterates my point that both platforms have different uses and ultimately they aim for different outcomes.

Hayleygil (discuss • contribs) 13:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)hayleygil

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.


 * 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.


 * 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 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) 18:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments - Wiki Exercise #1
Hi Hayleygil, I agree with your idea that Facebook and other social media sites are much more opinion based, particularly because of the fact people are mainly sharing information with their friends and family as the target audience. The fact that users can be banned from Wikipedia if they are inappropriate or break the rules when sharing information is another difference that elevates the quality of the content.

Emmamchristie (discuss • contribs) 21:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Hayleygil, similar to the previous comment I also agree with your points regarding social media being more opinion based, which is of course due to the friends and family connections on the various platforms. Also, your point regarding the difference between social media and wikipedia is exactly that. They have been created for two entirely different purposes (to a certain degree) so it is hard to compare. Although if one can take the content of their social feed as gospel, we are in bother. Lewislbonar (discuss • contribs) 21:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hayleygil,

I really enjoyed reading your post. I think that for a first time post on Wikibooks (the same as myself) you have provided really interesting information. I feel that I can relate with you on this post as I myself use Facebook and Instagram on a daily basis. I agree with you that they are much opinion based as you can view what other users are posting on a daily basis. Eilish2 (discuss • contribs) 19:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Eilish2 Eilish2 (discuss • contribs) 19:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Data Trials
It seems obvious to state, but we use social media platforms in order to be social and to share aspects of our lives and ourselves with family, friends and other users across the globe. The different platforms can contain a little to a lot of information about us including our name, age and where we're from. Almost all social media sites offer a range of 'privacy' settings whereby we can limit the amount of information available to other users or it gives us the opportunity to be more visible online and share more information. Having said that, it is extremely difficult (impossible even) to hide every aspect of our online profiles from other users.

Personally, on Facebook I have relatively tight security settings on my profile so that other users who I have not 'friended' cannot see a lot of my information. However, this leads me to my point about the friends we have on Facebook. Looking down my list I see people I know but some only vaguely - I don't know everyone personally and some I haven't even had proper interactions with. This means that I don't know what kind of people I'm actually sharing my information with; I only know them by their online identities. This can make us vulnerable online as we share information with people that we don’t know anything about. I’ve also noticed with Facebook that whenever they update their security settings I get notified and I can go and change anything if need be.

When we upload a photo of ourselves, our family, our friends etc. we instantly become vulnerable online. In recent years the concept of ‘catfishing’ has become a lot more popular in which users have their photos downloaded by someone else who then passes it off as their own. This makes the original user extremely vulnerable online and open to scrutiny if they are associated with ‘catfishing’ which has been carried out to bully online users.

In terms of how much control we have over the information that we share online, the answer is not very much. Once it’s posted we lose almost complete control over it. Social media records your personal browsing history to tailor adverts towards the individual and the information is stored elsewhere permanently.

Hayleygil (discuss • contribs) 05:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Hayleygil

Comments - Wiki Exercise #2
Hey ! Really enjoyed reading your post. I found your point about only vaguely knowing Facebook friends really interesting and it prompted me to go and have a look at my own friends list and I found the same thing! As you say, if we are not communicating regularly with someone then what is the purpose of having them there? I wonder if it is a subconscious feeling of more friends = more important? Or possibly it could be linked to our sense of self. I suppose if we didn't have many friends online then we could perhaps feel rather down about it, or maybe more friends online is to make up for a lack of friends in real life. Really interesting to think about either way! Similarly I know that I follow a load of people on both Twitter and Instagram that I don't really know at all. I'm a horse-rider so I tend to follow people on Instagram who are also horsey, so it is driven by a mutual interest, and in fact I met one of my best friends this way (luckily she wasn't a catfish haha!) but again, it is really quite strange that we interact with people that we don't really know at all, isn't it? We all do these things without much thought but no one really ever thinks about why we are actually doing it and once you do it all starts to become a little frightening! Would love to hear a response from you on why you think we do these little things! Liaa13 (discuss • contribs) 15:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Liaa13, thanks for your comment. In response to your first couple of questions, when I was younger and first started using Facebook I was quick to add anyone who's name was even vaguely familiar because I thought the more friends I had the better. Looking back I guess that's not the case, now I find my timeline still swamped with status updates and photos from people who, not to sound harsh, I don't really care about. I'm aware there are ways of turning off notifications from these people but then that begs the question - if we go through the trouble of turning off notifications so we don't see certain posts from particular 'friends', then why don't we just 'unfriend' them? Thinking about it, I'm not sure I've ever unfriended someone, and if I have it has been very few people. There's just something about 'unfriending' someone that doesn't feel quite right don't you think? I feel that for some people having more friends online does make them feel more important, regardless of if they know them or not. I agree with you that interacting with people we don't know online does feel strange in a way but it's also an incredible function of social media. It creates an insane opportunity to find like-minded people (like you said about following people on Instagram who are also interested in horses) from all around the world that you probably wouldn't meet otherwise. Social media allows for us to talk to so many people about whatever we want and in a way it's easier to talk to people online. You're allowed time to think about exactly what it is you want to say rather than the first thing that comes in to your head when dealing with face-to-face interactions. In a way I think social media gives people confidence and to relate it back to what you asked, do you think that's why a lot of us have friends we don't actually know on Facebook, or why we find it so normal to speak to strangers online? Hayleygil (discuss • contribs) 19:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi again, sorry for such a late response, I actually only just received the notification to your reply (annoyingly!). I see what Greg means when he says this platform can be rather clunky to use haha! Anyway, back to the topic: I totally get what you mean with unfriending someone.  I have personally done it in the past in a few circumstances; 1. Stupid arguments with friends as a 14 year old and 2. Suddenly realising I'm friends with a few people I have no recollection of adding or accepting!  Neither of those have happened often, but they did happen! Other than in these situations, I have gone to unfriend some people who I find are clogging up my timeline with multiple posts a day - but like you say it just feels slightly odd, even if I don't know them all too well in real life! It's a very odd phenomenon.  I also agree that social media is (or at least can be) an extremely positive thing and I'm glad you feel the same! I'm definitely one of the more positive people when it comes to social media having met one of my best friends online as I mentioned before.  I think it opens so many doors and opportunities for a lot of people and that is a really great thing. In response to your question, yes, I definitely think that is why we have these people and find it easier to chat to them than we would if it was a 'real life' situation.  I think social media provides an outlet for people to be themselves as they may struggle to do so otherwise, and also talk to people they may be too scared to face to face, or find people who are more suited to their personality! Liaa13 (discuss • contribs) 14:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading your WIKI EXERCISE @hayleygil as I think it is an extremely relatable topic especially for those of our age group. I don't know about you, but don't you think that compared to our parents who are on social media, we are extremely laid back in terms of who we add and the amount of people we have on our social network sites? One thing that I can always remember is my parents reinforcing the idea to never add anyone I do not know, but when I come to think about it as I scroll through my Facebook friends, some named pop up of people that I recognise the name and name only or, on the other hand i simply do not know them st all! I agree most definitely with you as you stated that we can made to feel vulnerable online by having those people we do not know, connected with us on social media and able to view anything we share about our lives. This has made me have a second think about who I'm adding or accepting in the future! Eilish2 (discuss • contribs) 10:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Eilish2 Eilish2 (discuss • contribs) 10:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Eilish2, I totally agree with you in that we are much more willing to accept friend requests from people we are not familiar with. Personally, my mum doesn't even have a Facebook account and my dad has around 30 friends on his. An article by the Daily Mail reports that "90 per cent of us have received an invite from someone we do not know - and 51 per cent of us will 'friend' them," which is bizarre. It's hard to determine why it's like this but I feel that the majority of the older generation are not as concerned with the way they appear online. To explain, I feel like there's a lot more pressure on young people to be popular online and to feel as though they need to be 'liked' on social media. Do you feel that people are hesitant to post certain aspects of their lives because those friends they don't know might judge them or do you think that having more friends encourages people to post more? Hayleygil (discuss • contribs) 20:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)
The introduction section here is a little brief, however it draws its strength from being well written, in an accessible language. In addition to this, very usefully, each section has been laid out in bullet point format, with a very brief summative sentence for each section. The sections themselves represent wide coverage of many of the main issues surrounding privacy in contemporary popular culture.

However, of particular use here – and very much a strength of the chapter as a whole, is the section that draws together the issues raised here, and applies these to other areas of the wikibook as a whole, explicitly making more of the platform than would otherwise have been, had the groups decided to write this chapter in isolation. To be clear, the execution of this section could have been better – greatly improved through more systematic use of interwiki links to draw attention to the specific pages, sections and issues from the various pages in the wikibook which you were commenting on. Another specific section here that could have been improved is the section on celebrity vlogging. Whereas it is true that there hasn’t been a lot written on this (yet – there is a growing interest in the scholarship, and we can expect much more appearing in the short term), it should have been acknowledged that the scholarship on celebrity culture as a whole is very well established, and that most of the issues raised in relation to YouTubers (e.g. “the price of fame”, privacy issues, and the implied “fair game” logic) are covered in existing debates on celebrity. All that said, the potential for this last section was recognised and other parts of it fully engaged with existing research in the field, and therefore is rewarded.

Structure-wise, the chapter seems to hang together fairly well – the definitions section at the beginning, whilst by no means exhaustive, gives the reader a sense of the subject matter under discussion early on, and also some useful working definitions of key terms used. Some typo errors and inconsistency of formatting appear dotted throughout, but these are not the norm for this chapter. Odd inclusion of bibliographical material of theorists, but no discussion or application their ideas in that section (especially in the case of Fuchs, where it lists a few of his research association and academic achievements. A little bit more joined-up work would have improved on this section enormously.

The unusual step of including a survey and posting the results here is an extremely useful one. Something that absolutely HAS to be thought through in ALL future work is that if one is conducting a survey (even if for demonstration purposes, as included here) or indeed ANY work with people, one must go through an ethics approval process – this is to ensure no harms (relative or absolute) occur for researchers or participants. This process will become more apparent later in the degree programme, particularly in final year projects. 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. Some of the formatting seems to go awry towards the end, so a little more joined-up thinking there would have been useful, but overall good.


 * 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


 * Posts of this standard do not address the assignment requirements. They offer little to no engagement with the concerns of the module. They are poorly written and comments are often extremely brief or missing. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.


 * Reading and research:
 * appreciably deficient evidence of critical engagement with set materials;
 * lack of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * poor articulation and lack of support in argument;
 * lack of evidence of critical thinking (you tended to not taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, nor did you support this position in discussion);
 * lack of evidence of relational thinking (you tended to not make connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, nor did you support these connections in discussion);
 * lack of evidence of independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * No evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * No engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Little or no use of discussion pages