User talk:Helizacarr

Hi, my name is Heather and I am using this wiki profile to prepare a project for my digital media class at university. Helizacarr (discuss • contribs) 14:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1 What Makes A Good Wiki?
I find that my experiences with social media change depending on factors such as what platform I'm using, who can see what I post, even how old I am at the time. For example, as a young teenager I would post multiple times a day on Facebook but now I strictly use it as a communication source (Facebook Messenger etc.) and rarely post to my public profile. I keep my social media accounts pretty separate, and I do not think I put forward the same "persona" out on all the platforms I use. Facebook is used as more of a practical tool, whereas I use Twitter as more of a casual and entertainment tool - I post things I find funny and interesting, knowing that the "audience" is mainly made up of people I don't know. I would say it is sites like Twitter that I (currently) see myself as a collaborator of. Facebook can also be seen as a place that I contribute to, but to a lesser extent. There are sites sch as YouTube where I see myself as purely a consumer of information, rather than a creator and collaborator.

One of the main differences I see between social media engagement and wiki engagement is the reluctance to use wiki as a communication source. It defines itself as an "encyclopedia" but it not only provides users with information but enhances knowledge, allowing users to communicate with others through its' platform and become engaged with the information that they are taking in. It gives users the chance to become an online collaborator rather than an idle consumer. Internet users seem to be much more willing to use sites like Twitter and Facebook potentially due to the ease of access and user-friendly interface - many internet and social media users may not even be aware that such features are available on Wiki.

Helizacarr (discuss • contribs) 23:22, 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 the main issue is that it's quite plain. 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 – these are fairly good, if a little brief. Remember that the comments are "worth" as much as posts themselves. The reason for this is not only to help encourage discussion (a key element of wiki collaboration!) but also to get you to reflect upon your own work. This can all, of course be used to fuel ideas that might form part of your project work. Your comment on another post:I think the key to getting more user involved in online contribution this way may be down to the changing of the user interface. Making it more accessible to first time users and to people who have used the site for years could open up new roads of communication for both parties. I think you're absolutely correct - one of the things I liked particularly about this take on things is that, wehereas you're fairly close to some of the other comments relating to user-friendly capabilities of social media, during this exercise, your approach to it is to think in terms of improving a system that already works, but in a way that retains the purpose and functionality of the wiki (rather than turning it into something it isn't).

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments
I'm not entirely sure if you're supposed to comment by editing you're original post, so forgive me if I've done this wrong!

I think you're view of Wikipedia/Wikibooks as a potential communication platform is incredibly interesting, and I wonder if Wikipedia could benefit from a dedicated, streamlined communication platform, to make the spread of knowledge between users more accessible. At present, the user interfaces are very crude, and not very inviting for new users, though you're post has made me think about the potential a more streamlined system could have. I hadn't even considered sites like Wikipedia as a communication platform; I have only ever used them passively, consuming the information. Viewing them in this light has definitely given me some food for thought!!

Dcunningham1017 (discuss • contribs) 18:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing! I hadn't actually considered wikipedia and the likes as this type of platform either until I sat down and properly thought about the assignment - if we're communicating ideas discussed in class through this platform, then why shouldn't the millions upon millions of users of wikipedia/wikibooks etc be able to discuss content from the website and debate ideas and any discrepancies in the same way? I completely agree with the fact that the interface needs to be redesigned to be more user friendly to encourage users to interact with data in this way. Helizacarr (discuss • contribs) 21:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree with your idea about appealing to certain audiences on certain platforms as I too use Facebook and twitter in the same way, using Facebook as mostly a viewer rather than a collaborator. And the same with Twitter as I feel that you can feel a lot more confident due to the seemingly "anonymous" audience. As you said as I am not aware of the different uses of Wikipedia such as this platform (wikibooks) that we are using now I see that it does allow for a certain type of collaboration and communication as we can comment on different ideas however I feel wikipedia as a platform is a lot less receptive of these kinds of communications due to the awkward long winded processes in order to communicate in comparison to a simple like button or comment box, would you agree? Justgabrielle (discuss • contribs) 23:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Helizacarr

I totally agree with you and Dcunningham1017 that the user interfaces on Wikipedia are seemingly outdated and can be a bit confusing for new users (like me), a new vibrant user-friendly interface would be incredibly beneficial to everyone involved. You make a great point about how many social media users are not aware of Wikibook discussions and how much effort some contributors of Wikipedia put into debates over certain topics etc. However, do you think we need another mass user communication source? I feel like we already have hundreds of ways to communicate and collaborate online. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, I love how energised the internet feels and it’s great to see creativity being shared online, but with so many of these platforms keeping up to date with these new forms of communication can be daunting. Thanks. Shakeygravesbeattie (discuss • contribs) 03:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2 - Visibility and Data Trails
Visibility and data trails is an issue something that users may not think about in the process of signing up and posting on numerous social media sites, although it has become more of an issue due to the current security and privacy issues. People seem to have become wearier of about who can see their information, often privatising profiles on websites like Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. On Facebook now, you can even tailor post so that certain people cannot see it at all, which makes sure you maintain a specific public persona to every individual that can see your page. However, even on these privatised profiles, users are still in control of the image that they project, carefully crafting a specific online persona to make themselves look happier, funnier etc. In this regard, visibility and data trail may relate to the issue of online identity – you may give your details out to a small amount of people thinking that it’s for people you know, but it is always from some sort of viewpoint; a way of making you look as attractive to those select few as possible.

In terms of data trails, often users will not think about the way in which their information is used and just how precious it is to big companies/corporations – they may see no harm in putting their e-mail address into a website to say sign up for a newsletter for example, but without knowing (or often not noticing the third-party opt out button etc.) users are completely unaware of just how far their data trails are reaching. Many companies now thrive on collecting this particular type of data, with many specialising specifically in data collection. Problems arise when user feel taken advantage of or cheated, for example data leaks and theft of valuable information – while some users might not see the issue in someone knowing their name, e-mail address age etc., the implications could be massive. Just these few menial pieces of information could lead anywhere, thanks to data trails. It may also pose a security risk to some users, especially with the rise in internet banking and the likes. Another issue may be the security problems users face with how visible they are online. For example, in light of the NSA scandal, users are much more careful than ever about how visible they are online, and just how their information is being used. The business of data has boomed in the past few years also, due to the rise in social media in the past decade.

Helizacarr (discuss • contribs) 09:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments
This is quite interesting. In your point about privatising online profiles you discussed that you can now tailor exactly who can see a post on Facebook now, I didn't even know you could do that! i also agree that even on privatised profiles users aren't completely in control of how they are portrayed and what information about them can be seen. despite their attempts of impersonation management. Also, do you think that by privatising online profiles people almost make Social Media platforms less social (as these people become harder to 'get to know' from their profiles online); or do you believe that privatising profiles simply just makes Social Media more secure? Your point in data trails is also very good. I find myself that it is far to easy to just give your information away online and that a lack of awareness may lead to a security risk for a user, especially as we as a generation progress further into a digital age. After all, its so easy to just type your email into a box without thinking of any implications. For example giving it to dominos when you make an order by accident one time and finding that your inbox on your email has become a disaster of promotional takeaway spam that will just make you hungry overtime you look at it. Campbell Wallace (discuss • contribs) 19:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)



Hi, thanks for your contribution! The privatising of individual posts on facebook is something that I have only recently became aware of myself, and which has come in handy quite a few times. In response to your question, I'm not sure if privatising a profile would make social media platforms less social, but I do think that having it as an option as not just an automatic setting helps the platform in attracting a wide range of users - those open to meeting new people and those merely using the site to keep in touch with friends/family. It's just whether keeping the profile private actually does protect users which is the big question.

Helizacarr (discuss • contribs) 00:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Very Interesting post! I agree completely with your views on the security issues online platforms create, with third parties mining our data often without our consent or knowledge. I believe we should be made aware when our data is being accessed, and more should be done to inform users of these sites regarding the safety of their personal information. An interesting point I see raised however, with the ubiquitous nature of this data harvesting, should we as users just accept that this is the nature of the internet now? We as users often consent to these anyway when we agree to the terms of service, (although companies definitely seem to go out of there way to hide what it is that you are consenting too in the small print). What are your thoughts on the responsibility being with the users as opposed to the companies mining the data?

I also found your point on relating visibility to our online identities very creative. With sites like Facebook allowing you to craft your data trail in the form of posts, (At least your public data trail, as opposed to information gleamed from tracking software or cookies), users can technically alter their online identity too. This has provided me with a new outlook on the nature of data trails, and how they can be used to alter perceptions of the users. Dcunningham1017 (discuss • contribs) 10:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3 - Information Overload
We now live in a different time to our parents, everything is at the touch of a button, countless times a day you say "I'll google it" and there it is. It's an extraordinary tool for gaining knowledge, and it has almost become invisible to us - the importance of it in our lives only becomes apparent when we don't have access to it (e.g. no internet connection etc.) Turkle speaks about being "tethered" to our technology. This explanation which works well with this idea of information overload - we are always "tethered", we always have some way of accessing this information whether it be through laptop, phone, or tablet. It seems that we can no longer have a discussion about anything without someone saying they'll "google it", which stops the discussion in its tracks. While this is helpful in some instances, it might actually prevent a human connection almost. Even schools have such a reliance on "independent research" now that from an early age, we are taught to use Google and the likes as part of our daily lives

Another problem which may arise from it is the actual amount of information available to us at any given time. No matter what information you would like to now, googling the simplest term such as "Berlin Wall" brings back 10,200,000 results. It is then up to the user to decide what is true and what to trust. Most people would use Wikipedia, despite insisting on not trusting it. I myself am probably one of these people - I just hit the top search (usually Wikipedia) and take it for the truth, without doing any further research. Therefore, one of the factors that effect how I deal with the abundance of information is narrowing it down to the websites I trust and I know have good reputations.

The past week/week and a half I have struggled to keep up with the demands of the Wikibook project. My degree subject is journalism and all of my focus went on to that for my deadline which was Monday, as well as another deadline for last Friday for another module. I also struggled to comprehend the actual task being asked of us, but after meeting face-to-face with my group and discussing, I am now in a comfortable position to continue with the Wikibook. We just need to make sure that any members that are unsure of anything are comfortable enough to ask for help. Helizacarr (discuss • contribs) 11:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments
I also am guilty of over-using google in my everyday life. I will stop conversations in order to google search something or to prove someone wrong in a conversation. I find it so easy to access information that it often times becomes distracting to me. When it comes to researching for school work, I also think that you have to be careful of the credibility of the source. It is so easy to look at the first thing that pops up on google and decide that that is the best source for your work. It's also easy to get lost in the information just based on clicking on the brief description that google gives for each article. I think that makes it difficult and a little more time consuming to sift through all of the information and pick and choose what will be appropriate to use. I think that that is why a lot of people usually do stick with Wikipedia because it is usually the first thing that pops up on google.

As for this project, I am also struggling to keep up with things as I have had projects and essays that I am trying to focus on because they are due before this project. At the same time, I am finding it difficult not to get distracted with my phone and looking up information on pointless things instead of looking at the useful and necessary topics that I need to be researching. I was wondering if you also have an issue with getting distracted on the internet? Helizacarr ;  Sam ediko (discuss • contribs) 22:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey thanks for replying! I definitely get easily distracted much like yourself, and I admit I have been guilty of this during this project. I think it's so easy to get distracted because so much of our lives are online now and it's all there at the touch of a button - we convince ourselves that we'll be missing out if we don't stay connected 24/7. I also agree with you when you talk about the lack of quality control when it comes to information that we access - like I mentioned above, I usually only trust a few sites, but even still, I would only usually go so far into the article/info page.

Hey ! There isn't a day that goes by where I don't have to google something. It has come to the point where I am dependent on it for spell check. I have lost all confidence in my ability to know things. Does that make sense? I constantly second guess things that I know are fact, but have to do a quick google search so I don't look like a fool. Filtering out information is a challenge I think everyone faces. I personally believe we have all become comfortable with know "just enough" about something. In a time where fake news is every where and a hot button topic, it's extremely helpful to have a little resource at the palm of my hand, but there are always lots of pros and cons. Meeting up with my group members in person has been my saving grace with this project. Trying to follow the discussion page and making heads or tails of what was going on was exhausting. In a way I feel like I am not really embracing the project because I am more comfortable with the in person discussions. Charleneabeana (discuss • contribs) 11:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey! No I completely understand what you mean by losing your ability to know things! We've become so dependent on it that we feel like we don't have to keep it in our heads - it will always be there if we need to know. I see your point with the group work as well, I did find it clunky and awkward trying to communicate over this platform, an issue I have realised has annoyed me since we don't get notifications as you do through Facebook Messenger. It makes me proactively check the website several times a day rather than waiting for something to prompt me. Helizacarr (discuss • contribs) 12:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4 - WikiBook Project Reflective Account
The collaborative nature of this project is very different to anyway I have been assessed in a module, but I definitely found it an interesting concept. I found that I ran into troubles with it in many ways. I had to keep checking the website, which seems silly but in a world where we are used to having the ding of a notification to alert us of anything, it was definitely a task to keep checking. I found the time we had as a group face-to-face, despite it being few and far between meetings, incredibly valuable. Personally, I found it easier to speak face-to-face and organise ourselves before beginning to communicate over the discussion page. In fact, I found that I actually couldn't start my contributions to the book before these discussions.

I did find that the Wikibook become incredibly useful for sharing information, ideas and resources with my group and also the groups that collaborated on the same topic. We had an instance of a member of another group and topic contact us in relation to linking the information in Always-On Culture (under the heading Privacy Concerns) to Privacy in the Digital Age. This is when I realised just how valuable the platform was with sharing ideas and information. It also definitely did maintain engagement with the themes of the module. This worked in two instances - as I was reading about topics and issues, but also through the way in which we were assessed. Halfway through it clicked with me that the point in assessing us in this way was to increase a deeper understanding. For example, the issue I mentioned previously with the lack of notifications made me realise a lot about the always-on culture. Writing for a small supportive audience felt very rewarding and seeing the finished book was very rewarding as well. Seeing it all slowly come together, and seeing in the discussion where it came from, was great to see and, to me, really proved the power of people collaborating and coming together to share information. It reminds me of the work we done in the most recent seminar which spoke about how much information we would have if we all took a little bit of our spare time to collaborate on projects. I definitely found that the discussion pages did stimulate debate and enhanced ideas that other of myself might have had. Participating in writing in publicly-viewable, moderated spaces made me think about how the way I speak to people in my group, some of whom I knew prior to the exercise and had different ways of interacting previously. This way, however, provided a new way of gaining information, and at the end it felt rewarding to have learnt something new, but also doing this with other people and thinking that you may have helped someone to understand something. Also given that we were to help out by giving links/sources/readings to other members, it was rewarding to see that this collaboration helped their contribution to the book.

As I mentioned previously, I found that the reading we spoke about in the seminar this week was particularly connected to the work we did on the book - the idea that if we take our free time to collaborate with other to enhance knowledge, we will become a better society. The other concept that became apparent whilst filling up the Wikibook was the idea of collective intelligence. Surowiecki (2004) talks about the "wisdom of crowds" and this seems relevant to the assessment. The idea that although we all have individual and independent knowledge from each other but when the group comes together they are "remarkably intelligent, and are often smarter than the smartest people in them." I personally felt a bit lost in the assessment, but when we came together, I felt it definitely enhanced my knowledge on the subject. Helizacarr (discuss • contribs) 23:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Heather, i totally agree with the lack of notifications being an unusual barrier to overcome. I tried my best to try and find an app or something that would allow me to get notifications so I definitely wouldn't miss anything but no luck I'm afraid. However, it did encourage me to be constantly checking the page and scanning for new information. I too thought when our group met that it was a big help especially in regards to figuring out the markup and things like that as that is so difficult to explain in text form and was better when we were helping each other through talking and teaching through showing and doing don't you think?

I do think the actual overall assessment did make you understand more about the module themes besides the actual looking into them in readings but in a more practical way by actually partaking in a lot of the themes like "always on" and "fear of missing out" we ourselves gained a better understanding without even knowing it and it has only really became apparent to me in doing the reflective post. I also thought that by doing these weekly posts that it was a much better way of getting you to understand the module as instead of pounding you with complicated epidemic questions it encouraged you to relate the themes to your own life and your own practices. I really enjoyed the aspect as well as reading other peoples posts and getting new perspectives on themes and ideas and I think this should be a part of every module because it really builds up your ideas to give you a more rounded view on things don't you think? Justgabrielle (discuss • contribs) 08:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, I really enjoyed reading your post, you raised some ideas about Wikibooks that I hadn’t properly delved into in my own post, mainly the idea of the hive mind and collective intelligence. This is particularly evident when we consider that the majority, if not all of us had no experience in creating and contributing to Wikibooks, and through the sharing of ideas and knowledge, we all managed to create something that was not only worth reading, but well laid out and signposted. I also agree with your point about sharing our knowledge with others being rewarding, our work at university is often assessed individually so it was an enjoyable experience to learn and manage something as new as Wikibooks as a group. You made a point about how inconvenient it was having to log onto Wikibooks in order to check to see if you had a notification, this is something that I wrote about in my own post. However, you cleverly link it to the idea of “always-on culture” which I failed to consider. I can see how our idea of constantly being online is challenged by Wikibooks as a platform as by nature we can never really be “always-on” Wikibooks in the sense that we are not permanently logged in to receive notifications to interact with. We are on Wikibooks when we log in and that’s all there really is to it. I also agree with you when you talk about the discussion pages being a good way to enhance knowledge through debate and discussion. However, like you say near the beginning of your post it was very difficult to contribute to the book without prior discussion with your group which was often hard to achieve on the discussion pages due to the rows of text and awkward notification system. Overall, I feel I have come to a similar conclusion as yourself in regards to the Wikibooks; the task definitely had its difficulties in terms of communication, but once we got over that my knowledge was definitely enhanced regarding both Wikibooks and the module.CaitlinCarbury (discuss • contribs) 18:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)
The Introduction section here is a little perfunctory, but the main Concepts section is where all of the key sections are mapped out. Each section has its own descriptive short paragraph, summarising the discussion and concept in fairly neat and concise ways. The overall effect of this is that the chapter is given a sense of narrative and structure from the outset. Whilst the discussion in various sections doesn’t always live up to this, and there are one or two inconsistencies, this ought not to diminish too much for the achievements evidenced here.

As mentioned, the sections themselves generally contain good content, but there are inconsistencies regarding the strength of argument, and citation of sources. An obvious example of this would be the first history section, for which citation of sources doesn’t occur until the paragraph on the 1990s!

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 use of interwiki links connecting all of the sections of the chapter together is both very useful and evidences good levels of project management, delegation of workflow, and joined-up collaboration. One thing that would have benefitted the chapter enormously, is if these interwiki links could have been extended to include more reference to other chapters in the book. For example, you have a subsection on Surveillance uses – there could have been interwiki links to various relevant sections in other chapters (especially, perhaps, Privacy in a Digital Age chapter).

Plenty of evidence of reading, secondary research and application of ideas from peer-reviewed sources, as well as other sources from popular culture and journalistic materials. This does tend to vary quite considerably from section to section, however, with some sections oddly drawing from newspaper online articles around topics for which there are materials available in the further reading lists (the subsections on internal effects, the Google effect and others, where there are some obvious aspects of that reading e.g. Vaidhyanathan and his book on the Googlization of Everything). Excellent section on FOMO.

The references section evidences research, reading and sharing of resources. However, the depth and range of sources could be considerably improved.


 * Good. Your contribution to the book page gives a good brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a good range of concepts associated with your subject, and the effort to deliver critical definitions, drawing from relevant literature and scholarship, and your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is very much in evidence. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a good 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 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