User talk:Ianthe2nd

Hello, my name is Ianthe2nd. This is a university of stirling project.

Wiki exercise #1 What makes a good Wiki?
In my experience the use of social media in order to help each other with projects, like essays, group tasks, etc. can make a huge difference in the work that you produce. An example of this would be of when pupils are put into seminar groups; using platforms, like Facebook, in order to get the appropriate contact details of each person in said group, so that you can make a group message page for people to discuss questions that anyone may have, to sort out who is doing which section of the project/ essay/ task, to see if they are doing the right task, to compare each other's work or even, if the project is collaborative, you can post your work for collaboration and the rest of the work is out of your hands.

As opposed to Facebook's group chat function you can use many other, alternate, social media platforms, for example Snapchat, Twitter or even an email/text list. However, group messaging on snapchat and twitter either aren't existent, only have a direct messaging function, or in the case of Twitter and Facebook you can tag people in relevant/ important posts. In the way of having multiple social media platforms to work with this can be especially helpful for those who work in 'Digital Journalism' for example, through looking at Linkedin posts, or any other social media post that is relevant for that matter, for example you can look up projected release dates for films, who is attached to act or produce or even if a project is to be delayed or not.

You can even discuss your work with others on the internet that are interested through message boards on sites such as Reddit or fan pages on Facebook/ Twitter, an example of how this is helpful can be seen in the gaming community on these websites where people that have never met can discuss lore behind their game of choice, or even game strategies and all sorts of gameplay walkthroughs in order to find what style suits them the best. In a similar way if you are writing an essay or participating in a group project you can present your findings/theories/ work in progress and see as others (peers) read your material and provide feedback on it. Whether that feedback may be positive or negative. Even modding communities come together to share in an interest that might not be deemed as the most social, but yet it is, granted everyone is granted a certain level of anonymity by the internet, however that can make it easier to communicate with a person as there isn't that added pressure of meeting someone new- in terms of finding out their interests, etc.

On the note of the negative, there is a downside to presenting your work or your opinion on the internet though and that is the fact that anyone can be easily targeted by trolls or hate groups who just behave in an antisocial manner and leave negative comments just for the sake of it.Ianthe2nd (discuss • contribs) 10:08, 8 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.


 * 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 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 you haven't really addressed the brief fully. You need to engage with the wiki process too, which you seem to have overlooked. Drawing from reading and research, where personal experience is absent (I get that you haven't really done much wiki work yet!) would have helped.


 * 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. I like that you have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!). However, you didn't sign your contribs! therefore these were really difficult to track down and could have been easily missed.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 10:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #1
This is a good summary of online collaboration. The decision to discuss Facebook messenger makes sense as it is the primary platform for social media communication. The inclusion of examples with regards to collaboration through sites such as Reddit and Facebook grounds your writing in reality, making it easier to relate to and understand in a real world context. The balanced approach you have taken when representing the positives and negatives of mass collaboration is essential in providing a fair portrayal of online collaboration. They layout is generally good, however there are some very long sentences which could be broken up into smaller individual points. Overall this is an insightful approach to the subject of online collaboration, but it may be worth reading aloud your writing to prevent overly long sentences. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 13:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

 *capitalised the names of social media platforms*  As the comment above has expressed the discussion of Facebook messenger as a platform for co-operation and socialisation is understandable as it is the most commonly used and has a multitude of uses for both projects and social communication. I liked your inclusion of a multitude of media platforms and the uses they have. I also found the message board section rather interesting as it isn't something I have much experience or knowledge of. However I don't quite understand the wording of the second paragraph, perhaps it needs re-wording. Ailsamaloney12 (discuss • contribs) 16:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the two comments above that this piece is an effective piece on online collaboration in a general sense and you make some thought provoking points. Your post demonstrates the advantages of collaborating on platforms such as Facebook messenger in order to effectively discuss any problems/solutions during a group project. I also liked the fact that you brought up Reddit and fan pages on Facebook/Twitter and discussed the possibility of it bringing people closer together through common interests such as gaming, a point I would never have previously thought about. I would have to agree with the comments stating that some of the sentences could be broken down but overall I found it a very informative post. Frkelly (discuss • contribs) 10:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2 : Visibility and Data Trails
Now when anything is posted to the internet it is there forever, no matter if it deleted, nor how quick that may be. This is important to remember in terms of thinking of what is really private.

Now with any social media platform (or any platform that you have to make an account on) there are, usually, privacy options put into place. In the case of Facebook these privacy options give the user the ability to set who can see the content you post, for example they give the option of letting only your friends see your profile or you can set it to letting the public see. If you apply for the former it is true that most people can't see your posts on Facebook, although, it does still show basic details about yourself, like the town and country you live in, your name, etc. You can even still look up your own pictures on google images. It's that easy to do and, in the case of sites like Youtube and Vimeo, your videos can be easily searched for too.

This proves that it's all well and good for a site to boast to have privacy settings, but nothing is really private anymore. These 'privacy' settings are just there to lure the user into a false sense of security. That being said it is important to note that privacy settings only protect you from other users on the same site and stop the most basic 'cyber-crime', but not any third party entities.

In my experience privacy settings are useful in some, limited, ways. An example of this would be if you block someone on any social media platform. This way they can't see any content that you have posted, and in some cases you can't see the same from them either.

Governments all around the World, in general, have recently come under fire for how they keep surveillance on their own citizens without them even knowing. A good example of this would be of how, former NSA worker, Edward Snowden leaked certain information that the U.S government was keeping secret, which then led to more information being uncovered by other whistle blowers across the World, an example of this would be a similar "leak" within the U.K government.

Although, some people say that this information should have never been leaked to the public in the first place as it puts national security at risk. Thus giving credence to why people in the same position as Edward Snowden are being vilified in media; and in the case of Snowden who is in hiding in Russia for multiple counts of treason.

Russia is now in bother with the American government as Russian spies have been accused of tampering with the voting system in America's most recent public elections, however this hasn't put a dampener on the fact that Donald Trump seems to have a good relationship with the Russian government, which has led to speculation that Trump rigged the election.

Comments on Wiki Exercise #2
Hello Ianthe2nd, after reading your post on online visibility and data trails I felt like it outlined some key points that conveyed the topic well. Your mention of the illusion of legitimate privacy fell in line with the research i also did on the topic. Also, your use of the Snowden case to illustrate the state of online privacy today helps to allow the reader to better understand the points you are trying to make. Although interesting, your final point on the recent American elections may stray from the original topic. Furthermore, have you experienced many issues with the privacy of the content you post online? Your own experience may help to contextualise some of the points you are trying to make. I hope the comments i have made will be helpful to you in future. MurrayHighFive (discuss • contribs) 20:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I found the opening few lines effective, The idea of we have to think about what is really ‘private’ is something I talked about in my latest entry and nothing we post is truly private. I like how you then develop this idea throughout your piece, giving examples to back up your point. I also liked the second part of your piece where you talked about Snowden, this was an angle I would have never previously thought to have taken. I thought you discussed this well and made some very valid and up to date points regarding the situation of America and potential Russian involvement in their recent election. The one thing I would point out is how do all these comments about Snowden and Russia directly relate to the questions regarding visibility? Frkelly (discuss • contribs) 10:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload
With work in general it is easy to get distracted. That much has been true for many years, for example with essays, etc. I find myself doing anything other than what I am supposed to be doing at that moment, no matter how important it may be. Even as I type this now all I can think of is what else I could be doing.

Recent technology has not made this easier as you can do any amount of things on one device and can keep yourself in a loop, when it comes to procrastination. An example of this would be how on most devices connected to the internet you can browse the web meaning any website you can think of is accessible; however, the same can be said for many mobile devices like phones, tablets, etc. as many apps are available e.g Youtube, Spotify, Twitter, Facebook, etc.

Although, there are things that you can do instead of using the internet or any technology related to that, for example some choose to exercise i.e going to the gym, hiking, etc., others do chores i.e, cleaning, ironing, and so on.

On platforms such as Youtube it is easy to fall into a cycle of watching videos for however long because of the fact that every single video has related and/or suggested videos for you to go to. Something similar to this can happen in relation to Facebook or Twitter where you can just scroll through your own feed or on certain accounts for how long you desire.

In the case of games consoles those apps exist with the added bonus of playing games or "classics", even now with consoles and PCs there is the choice to play older games from generations before or play remasters of old games. In other words, there is a bunch of content that you can waste your day on instead of doing work. A good example of this would be how on Youtube the thought might be 'I'll just watch this video.', but then this turns into a chain of 'maybe one more.', and so on. Although, sometimes this kind of distraction is needed, if done right, in order to decompress but keeping the goal of the initial task in the back of your mind and maybe you take that time to come up with a solution to the problem, or to have a plan of action on how you are going to proceed in the task at hand.

In my experience it is easy to get lost in the internet as opposed to what you're supposed to be doing when the device you use for essay writing is the same device you would use for leisure also. This may be something for technology developers to think about when putting all sorts of functions onto one device.

I find it to be common practice to do half, or more than half, of the work you need to do first and then to do something different (taking a break) does work when going back to the task that needs to be finished, however this may not be the case in terms of either smart phones, consoles, and other devices.

Overall it seems that technology, the internet, etc. are a major help, but also a hindrance when it comes to working on anything.

Comments
Hi Ian, overall I found this a effective and thought provoking post. I would agree with a lot of the points you made, they are very similar to the points I made in my post regarding dealing with the vast amount of information we have access to. I find the YouTube comment amount falling into a cycle of watching videos comment a particularly and is definitely something that a lot of people can relate to. I personally get very distracted on devices that I am supposed to be writing an essay on aswell, even as I am writing this comment on your post, I find myself getting distracted and opening different tabs, looking up information that is irrelevant to the task I am meant to be doing. The one thing I found lacking in this post is it fails to answer or acknowledge the question of how all this may affect the workflow of your contributions to the Wikibook project, other than that I found this a very good piece of writing.

Frkelly (discuss • contribs) 11:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ian, through reading your recent wiki post I have found that most of the examples you have described fall in line with my own experiences. Both the Youtube example and being distracted by games all day are both things i have fallen victim to far too often. I find it interesting that you largely comment on the wealth of information as being negative as there are arguably a lot of positives such as having instant access to almost any question you ask. Its possible that the structure of your post may be a bit erratic however that may just be down to personal preference and as mentioned by Frkelly, the wikibook portion of the answer is missing. Other than that i feel this was a very informative post. MurrayHighFive (discuss • contribs) 12:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
At the time, it was increasingly clear, through the process of making the Wikibook, that the Wikibook website wasn't the best for communication, for example most of our online discussion took place on Facebook Messenger and then was interpreted on the Wikibook discussion page. However, Facebook Messenger isn't the best when it comes to monitoring what is said and what isn't, so I see the reasoning behind why we had to post on the discussion page.

Otherwise, on the whole I would say that the project was a success. I can see how communication is key though, for example a member of our group was out a few days for shooting a short film, therefore missing one of our meet ups, but that was completely fine with the rest of the group as we just posted our findings- and work- on the discussion page and Facebook Messenger to make sure that the information was understood by all who couldn't make it.

When it came to meeting up with each other, it took effort to message on both Facebook messenger and on the Wikibook discussion page. I have spoken about communication on the paragraph previous. I found that when the met up in our groups that it was easier to communicate my views in person, although, that may be an experience unique to me. Also, I found it easier to see what the objective was in these meet ups as I find it easier to learn via watching, but then again I realize that this may also be unique to myself. I do see the aim in meeting up with each other as it gives each group member an opportunity to present their ideas of how they believe their section should look, which in turn may inspire others through healthy discussion.

This conflict of ideas may seem to be a hindrance, but it gives the rest of the group insight into how some people may view the internet, an example of this would be in religion where the idea of another point of view may seem silly, however, it gives us another opinion to work with an incorporate into our collective research.

It seemed when each group member was given a specific topic to write about it was easier to let them do their research independently and then to edit the article in accordance to how a Wiki page should look. Although, I would say that this whole process may work better within smaller groups. This is just to ensure that there is minimal overlap of ideas or research topics. However, this overlapping of ideas would be useful for showing some else, who is talking about a similar subject, another way to talk about the same thing, or it could give them ideas on what to talk about.

On the other hand, looking at each chapter of the Wikibook project each chapter relates to the same subjects and each subject is talked about in a similar way. In this way, I feel that each chapter is basically the same, but just said in different words. This may conflict with my statement earlier where I suggested making the sizes of the groups smaller though.

Comments
Hi !!! I definitely agree with the points you made about communication. I also found at times that the Wikibooks platform made it difficult to communicate. Although I understand the need for everything to be Public, and therefor posted the way it is, I wonder if Wikibooks could benefit from an alert system like say Facebook? That way users could at least respond quicker. I did however find the discussions helpful. The sharing of Ideas made the project a lot easier, and delegating tasks made it less overwhelming than it seemed at first.

I also agree with your point on the conflict of Ideas. The Wikibooks platform seems to have a very open, and 'liberal' community. The discussion pages allow users to debate points, and the conversations always seem very civil.

The group work was also very beneficial, and I agree that discussing ideas face to face to present hour ideas helpful. I wonder though if our experience in groups gave us an advantage on the projects? Although I also found the group meeting especially useful, this isn't exactly how other users actually create content on Wikibooks, at least not often. Dcunningham1017 (discuss • contribs) 23:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ian, just like the post above states, I like your introduction regarding the flow of communication on the WikiBook. My group was the same to start with, everything was said through our group chat on WhatsApp before we started posting on the discussion page and in hindsight talking on the discussion page was much better suited for the task at hand. I liked your point about it being much easier to get your point across in person, this is a point that I had not considered and would say I agree with. When posting in the discussion pages for the Wiki, like many forms of communication, it is hard to get across exactly the point you are trying to make whereas in person you can explain and if anybody is confused the matter can be resolved quickly.

I do not know how you first felt when starting the project but our group started the discussion page was messy and lacked structure for a long time and so trying to get your point across was difficult, one the discussion got some structure and everybody felt more comfortable with the format it was easier to ask something or get your point across but I do not know if this applies to your group aswell.

I found your suggestion of working in smaller groups interesting, as I found when working on my topic that I had a few sections that overlapped with what other people had done and found this frustrating. However the issue was resolved on the discussion page but I do agree with your point on the fact that working in such a big group can lead to significant overlaps.

I found this an effective and interesting post that successfully reflects on your own experience of the Wiki platforms and contained ideas that I agreed with. Frkelly (discuss • contribs) 01:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ian, I think you make some great points in your evaluation of the wiki books project and cover many points that I, myself can relate to but also that others will be able to understand. I agree with your point that once the smaller groups were decided and everyone had their individual sections the work became much easier, I think perhaps simply because you don't have to communicate on such a complicate platform with so many people, which is the most difficult part. I also had the experience of my group working mainly on Facebook Messenger as again, it's a much easier use of communication. I think that a group project is often hard to correlate and organise, who is doing what, when, how much etc. etc. but when adding a complicated platform that you're being forced to use to communicate across I think it unnecessarily adds a layer of difficulty. In this sense I would imagine a Facebook like platform would be ideal for discussion and organisation, then the discussion page could be a place for suggested layouts, topics, more basic aspects before completing the book itself. Overall though I agree with your thoughts about seeing the benefit of making the wikibook. Ailsamaloney12 (discuss • contribs) 12:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)

 * 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


 * 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 an appreciable standard (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Good 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