User talk:Hlat123

This is the discussion page for Hlat123's wikibook Hlat123 (discuss • contribs) 20:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikiboook Exercise #2
I am much more visible online than I wish to be. While I may choose to share with only people im "friends" with on social media platforms, I still worry that too much information is available about me online. It is not that I am worried about my privacy and other conspiracy things, but rather I feel that my online presence can sometimes detract from my real life. Currently, I do not have many platforms that I use. I only have a Facebook and a Snapchat. I have even gotten rid of my facebook for many months at a time, only to be brought back out of necessity to communicate in school groups. The reason I feel that this visibility is a problem, is that many people have become so shielded behind a computer and only communicate over social media platforms. For me, it means much more to me if someone talks to me in person to congratulate me on an accomplishment rather than post on my newsfeed. The visibility that people have online, leads to less necessity to communicate in person, because many answers are all online. I try to keep less information online and not post a lot on Facebook. It feels like the more visible I am online, the less I have to talk about with people in person because they are already filled in on my life. This relates to the theme of "Always-on" as discussed in lecture Always-On implies that people are permanently attached to the technology that we consume and almost always visible online. This worries me greatly and because in my experience, this often leads to worse traits in real life social situations. People almost use social media platforms to be visible online, so that they can blur their real life and make that information less visible.Hlat123 (discuss • contribs) 13:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3
In todays society the internet has exploded and there is now almost more information on the internet than one could ever need. While this can be a major advantage, it can also be a hindrance with information overload. Sometimes this mass amount of information can be a distraction. However, I have found that there are many tools and techniques that one can use in order to zero in on what information they are looking for and these tools have become vital in our use of the internet. Sometimes this tool can be as simple as a search bar on a website's homepage. Other tools can be even more specific than this. One example is Google's advanced search option for pictures. If I wanted to look up a picture of a dog for a brochure I was making, I could google the term "dog" and get millions of pictures. Of course in any search, it is useful to be as specific as possible. It would be best to search "German Shepherd running", for example. Google advanced search can help remove extra, unwanted, distracting images. With the added search tools, one can choose color, type, time uploaded, size, and even usage rights. This can help find the specific information that you may be looking for and minimize distractions. A Google help page that offers assistance in removing these distractions can be found here.

The Google image search tools are not the only tools that the internet can provide to narrow down information. Many similar tools are offered for searching for websites, or booking a flight based on time, date, and destination. The vast array of search tools have been created in order to ensure that people can find the information they desire in a timely and efficient manner. Without these tools, we would be lost in the vast swarm of information on the internet and accessing information would be much less user friendly. Hlat123 (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments Exercise #3
Hlat123: Having different filters to help you make more precise findings has become somewhat of a necessity today, when it comes to searching information online. With the help of Google's algorithms you can search for a very specific piece of information and quite likely be able to find it among the multiple web pages. One of my favourite tools to use in order to find some specific information is to use Control/Command + F. This simple word search method is preferable to scrolling through a long text or trying to locate a single detail on a site full of information. It is quite simple in its essence but it has saved me so much time over the years. I actually found an article regarding this because apparently not that many people are aware of this shortcut. Being able to filter the information you receive is so important and it saves a lot of time in the long run while it can also help people browsing the web to avoid seeing any triggering material. I think that filters contribute to a safer web and that is always a good thing. Riinamaria (discuss • contribs) 16:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

RE Riinamaria: Hi! Both of you have introduced interesting tools online in narrow down information. Control/Command + F is the function I use a lot especially when i am studying others' researches. Keywords are very important to let us access what we need in the midst of large amount of irrelevant information. However, notice that the above mentioned tools are just for those who know exactly what they want to know. For those who are newly exposed to some issues, they don't know them all-roundedly. What they can do is just to take a look on those unsorted information and narrow down information. Do you know any more tools help with this? Chuyanlol (discuss • contribs) 10:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4
This project has been really eye opening to the impact a group of people can have when they combine their efforts. Clay Shirky wrote about this idea and coined the term cognitive surplus. This project exemplified this term because people have a lot of free time, but when they join their efforts on projects such as the civic web, they can be very productive. This project was my first experience with using the civic web and also in working with a group this large. Even though the groups were broken in to smaller groups of about five people, I still felt it was hard to manage the thirty people in the larger umbrella. At first, I felt very intimidated to participate because of how many other people there were on the page. I didn’t want to offer up any organization formats or anything because I didn’t feel I had that much control. This enlightened me to the possible difficulties of trying to collaborate with so many people, without a leader and roles already decided. However, for as difficult as I found it, collaborating on the Internet was much easier than it would have been in person. I cant even imagine trying to organize this work for an in-person project. The format of Wikibook was nice because people could post links and easily share information and tips they had found. Furthermore, it was easy to build on other people’s work and research. I found the use of the Internet to be helpful as information was just a click away rather than scrolling through a book to find a quote. The discussion page of the Wikibook helped a lot to assist in communication. It was nice to be able to break down communication into our smaller groups, but then still be able to see and reference other groups work. I think that this communication format can help the project be more cohesive and have one direction it heads towards.

One things that really helped me was discussing face to face with one of my small group members. It was nice to be able to ask her questions and get advice on how to even start using wikiebook because I had never used them before this project. While talking via the internet may be more convenient, it is not as good quality of communication as face to face communication. When you talk face to face there is a direct and instant feedback. Sometimes on the wikibook talk page I would pose a question or ask advice and because it was online and maybe not directed at one person, it would take a long time to get responded to, if it ever even did get a response. I think that for future civic web collaborations that in-person communication must find a way to be included because it can sometimes clarify things better than a written message on a talk page.

Another part of this project that helped me a lot was the collaboration within my smaller group and the sharing of information. Someone in my group did some research to decide what they were going to write on. Instead of just ignoring the rest of their research, they shared it with the group and gave good tips on how that research could be used in other ways than they were using it. This was very helpful because, at first, I was having a hard time finding a direction to go in. When my group member posted a few articles on work efficiency and technology it inspired me to research that topic further and see how changing technology will affect the future work environment. Not only did this spark an idea and interest for me, but it also fit in nicely with the topic they were researching. This led to a better collaboration on the civic web.

Overall, I thought this project did a good job introducing me to the ideas of the civic web and showing the possibilities that people can have on the internet if we all collaborate valuably. Hlat123 (discuss • contribs) 11:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments Exercise #4
Hi Hannah! I think you did a really interesting comment about the work we’ve been developing these last few weeks. I also think that the experience of working in this way is very rewarding, and all together we can be very productive. I also think the same as you about the group organization, it can intimidate at first working with a lot of people. At last, we all have learned something useful for our lives, and more about the civic web, so I enjoyed. Nuriaj95 (discuss • contribs) 17:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You are right. Collaborating on the Internet was much easier than it would have been in person but at the same time it can be so troublesome if we happen to cooperate with people with less responsibility. I also agree on what you mentioned about the communication which is non-direct to person. It takes longer time to have people followed to the issue and make respond, as a result make communication and edition of content more difficult. One more thing, we can randomly edit any content or being edited by others which may result in more information crossover. Therefore we tended to give suggestion in discussion page and not to directly get control over the associated content, which is very rational and helpful! :) Chuyanlol (discuss • contribs) 09:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
Some very good contributions to sections on future work efficiency and employment. This material is supported through reference to independent secondary research, cited through good formatting practice, and the discussion of ideas is analytical rather than merely descriptive in character. You also wikignome a fair bit in the final moments of the project period. Had you engaged for the entire period rather than just the last 3 days, you would have produced something potentially brilliant. As it is, this is solid enough.

Wiki Exercises


 * 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.

Content (weighted 20%)

 * 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.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, clearly grounded on close familiarity with concepts and ideas encountered on the module
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material through evidence of close familiarity with a wide range of evidence
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument featuring appreciable depth of understanding
 * good level of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * good 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 appreciable 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) 14:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)