User talk:Ihatewasps

*DISCLAIMER* This page will be used for class assignments and discussion.

Wiki Exercise #1: Educational Assignment
Please note this post is for a class assignment.

'You Look Disgusting' Video
In the recent lectures, the discussion of online anonymity and subsequent online disinhibition reminded me of a video that went viral a few months ago, in which a beauty blogger, Em Ford, or My Pale Skin, highlighted both the ugly truth of social media and the double standards of beauty. The video, titled 'You Look Disgusting', explores the real comments made to Em online, via her Instagram, over a 3 month period. She contrasts the remarks left on photos she shared of her bare face and her acne showing, with photos of her acne covered by a full face of makeup. In this time, over 100 000 people commented on her face.

Comments such as "I can't even look at her" and "you look disgusting" were left on photos of her bare face. On images where Em had makeup on, there were more positive comments such as "you look beautiful". However, even these photos attracted negative comments, "this is amazing but so gross", "you wear too much makeup" and "this is why I have trust issues". Although I believe people have the right to freedom of speech, I do not understand people who leave unnecessary, ignorant and disrespectful comments which are hurtful and uncivil.

The video not only demonstrates some of the implications of social media, where anonymous hate is prevalent. It also shows the double standards of society's ideals on beauty. Em writes "I wanted to create a film that showed how social media can set unrealistic expectations on both women and men. One challenge many face today, is that as a society, we're so used to seeing false images of perfection, and comparing ourselves to unrealistic beauty standards..." This causes some people with acne to be shamed for wearing makeup as it's deemed "false advertising", but then, in turn, shamed for not wear makeup, as their imperfections are on show.

Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Comment

 * your statement "Although I believe people have the right to freedom of speech, I do not understand people who leave unnecessary, ignorant and disrespectful comments which are hurtful and uncivil." well, now is the opportunity to gain insight into this very phenomenon! This module gives you the necessary conceptual frameworks to deal with this issue in a critical way. Here, this is fairly well-written entry. It was useful that you related this to the themes and concerns of the module and specifically online disinhibition. Fair use of the markup too.


 * A post of this standard roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor, at the upper end of this grade band:
 * 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.

RE: Comments on others’ work

 * one of your comments absent. You have not adhered to the brief. Remember that your comments (on two other people's posts!) on other people's work is weighted as heavily as your own post when it comes to grades. Not completing this part of the exercise means that, effectively you are halving your mark. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 17:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments
Hi @Ihatewasps, this video and the story behind it shows extremely impressive to what disinhibition can lead. On the one hand, the internet seems to be a great place to discuss with others, get attention or even act like the person you want to be. The Internet and to an even greater extent social media platforms become more and more a kind of identifying platform where young people seek affirmation from online communities and want to belong to the mainstream. Especially young people are not as solid in their life or have a strong personality which can lead to the fact that they take the comments to heart (unreflecting). I´ve heard of many stories where people got bullied by anonymous that weren´t aware that their posts or comments would wreak havoc to a person´s awareness. It is tempting to hide behind the anonymity and feel powerful by making an unknown person look small. Those stories remind me always to the saying “Put mind in gear before opening the mouth!”. Figuratively this has carried great weight for me. With every word, even unconsciously, we have to carry responsibility and consequences that are difficult to expect at first. I really like the way you figured out the essence of the story and your presentation. Good work. --Esser.h (discuss • contribs) 18:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Esser.h, thank you for commenting. I agree that the internet has its advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, it can be a great place for people to gain acceptance and affirmation, especially for young people. However, it appears that some individuals take the opportunity of anonymity to attack people unjustly and lose consideration for people's feelings. Often they forget that the things they say can affect others negatively. Thanks again for commenting. Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

A great example of the ambiguity of sociological expectations. On the one hand you have both men and women who are placed under judgement for not wearing make-up and showing their true self. Much of the time their true self exhibits many of the qualities we all have, such as acne or occasional blemishes. So why ridicule someone who is dealing the same 'imperfections' the majority of us face? And on the other hand men and women- although predominantly women- are again judged for living up to societal expectations and placing a figurative veil over their 'imperfections'. You mentioned about how some commentators responded by saying how wearing make-up is "false advertising". This remark has always bothered me as its primarily said by men towards women, and I don't think they realise how derogatory and sexist such a remark is as we are people, we are not products waiting to be purchased, therefore we shouldn't have to advertise ourselves. However, in a culture powered by depictions of 'perfection' it can be difficult to disassociate oneself as just another one of these depictions and make us feel as though we need to market ourselves. Beespence1 (discuss • contribs) 12:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Beespence1, thank you for your comment. You made a really interesting point about the "false advertising" remark. I've seen countless comments on videos and pictures to people with makeup on saying similar disrespectful and derogatory things. In the video, there is a comment suggesting her makeup is "misleading". As you said, nobody should be objectified as a product to be bought or be judged/shamed for having 'imperfections' or choosing to wear makeup. However, it is common for some individuals to hide behind their anonymity online in order to do such. Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 23:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

That video shows a contrast between the 'be who you are'-culture and the need for making up to fit into society. In your post you used interesting quotes from the video but also from Em herself. I like that you used links to refer to the video and other sources like her Instagram-Channel and the blog. I had a good imagination about what the video will deal with before i watched it. Your summary describes the whole discussion very well, because it brings together the opinion of Em Ford and an outlook on the consequences of this society where it is easy to write "You're disgusting" but nobody thinks about the consequences. To improve your post, you could look for responses on that video for example in the media or on YouTube. SimonBrinkmann (discuss • contribs) 17:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @ihatewasps I was just wondering how you got the little [1] above your words to link to other websites? Would be really useful to know as it would definitely make referencing a lot cleaner for me! CwazyChris (discuss • contribs) 18:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi CwazyChris, to link like that, you type before the website address you would like to reference and then < / ref > after the website address (all without spaces). For example, if you wanted to link to the Wikipedia main page you would type:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page < / ref >
 * (without spaces it would look like this: ). If you look in the editing section for these comments it might make a little bit more sense. I hope this helped! -Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 15:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * @ihatewasps thank you very much, I forgot to thank you after I tried it out, worked like a charm! Hope your project is going well! CwazyChris (discuss • contribs) 11:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * CwazyChris, No problem, glad I could help! Hope your project is going well too! Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 12:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Educational Assignment/Visibility and Online Footprint
My visibility online is less prominent than the 'usual' person on social media. My social media usage is predominantly for the consumption of media rather than actively creating and participating. My main social media channels are Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat, although I do have others that I use less.

My Facebook has quite a lot of privacy settings, with only my profile photo and cover photo visible to others that aren't added as friends. I use Facebook mainly for communicating with friends and family with the chat feature as it is easier to have a conversation over than other social media, for example, Snapchat. However, my use of Facebook was different a few years ago when I first created my profile as I was an avid status poster. I don't think I've posted a status in about 4 years now.

Similarly, my tweets are only visible to people I accept, therefore it's just friends that follow me. I mainly use this to favourite tweets I like and keep up with friends and celebrities on what they are up to and have to say. I do tweet on the rare occasion, however, my profile is mostly re-tweets rather than actual original tweets. On the other hand, my Instagram is my most public social media. I, again, mostly use it for the consumption of media, however, I post more frequently here than my other profiles. Even still, I don't post as frequently as most others. I'd say it was my favourite and the one I always find myself clicking on if I am bored. It is my only social media that is not fully private but my followers are mostly friends, some family and people I know.

Snapchat is the social media I'm most active on. This I share with my more close friends. Here, only people with my username can send me snaps and only approved people can see my story. I find it easier to post on and use Snapchat than other social media platforms because I have become an over-thinker when it comes to posting anything online. Not that anything I want to say or post is incriminating or something that I wouldn't be happy if my mum saw, but I think one of the reasons I'm so particular about the things I post is that there is a pressure to obtain lots of 'likes'. It has become a big part of social media and more like a competition of how many 'likes' people get. Furthermore, privacy is important to me therefore, since I only allow my closer friends to view my snaps, it's not something I worry about on this platform. There is also no 'like' feature, and the photos can only be viewed for a short period of time.

The information I put online is under my control to an extent because obviously I can chose what I post and who can view it. With block and delete features it is easy to manage who can view your content and profiles, especially on Facebook. But I don't read terms and conditions often ever, so it could be possible that a third party has access to my information. Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 18:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments
I've never felt like I needed (or I wanted) to read the terms and conditions on whichever website, because I've never thought that I could have something really important to protect or that I could do something so stupid for which I could get in serious troubles. But now I've decided that I actually want to know my rights and how my data will be handled, as I cannot complain about a social network messing up with my information when I'm the one who gave it the power to do so. I often see people complaining about the lack of privacy on facebook but I think we are the problem in the first place as we all are a bit careless. GConcilio94 (discuss • contribs) 19:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi GConcilio94, thanks for commenting. I agree that some people are careless in their approach to social media, especially in terms of privacy and their personal details. People are often mistaken in think it's totally safe. I think, like you said, we cannot complain about how our data is handled when we have technically ticked a box claiming we have read what is happening to our data. We should all aim to be a bit more careful as who knows who has access to our information. -Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 19:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion you are using social media very responsible and in a way it is useful for your life instead of just spending your whole day watching what other people do. I think on Facebook i have a pretty similar way of usage as i give much attention to privacy settings and try to control if my posts are really interesting for my friends. For example i don't really understand why people share pictures of 'funny' things just to not get bored. If people would use it in a way to stay in contact and share relevant information it would be different - I think it would even be better. Snapchat does not really make sense for me because you just show pictures for some seconds. If i'd like to show pictures to friends, I just send it to them or post it on Facebook/Instagram. Don't you think it's uncomfortable to see these pictures for some seconds and never again? SimonBrinkmann (discuss • contribs) 12:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi @SimonBrinkmann. Snapchat is a social media I use more for sending funny things to individual friends rather than groups of people, or my whole friends list. Usually, it's photos from out and about and I find Snapchat a quick and easy way of sending photos to them. I also like being able to quickly make a caption directly on the photo. I do not find it uncomfortable for these pictures to be there only for a few seconds as it is usually trivial things that don't have a lot of meaning and aren't extremely significant, therefore it doesn't bother me. If there was a photo I wanted to show to someone that had a bit more meaning, I would either show them in person or send it to them another way. Also, if they wanted to keep the photo forever, it is easy to screenshot the photo and save it. Thanks for commenting! Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 19:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Educational Assignment/Information Overload
It is both exciting and daunting to think about the mass of information available out there on the internet. There are obvious advantages to such an abundance. It is easy to access and most of this information is without charge to view. There are a variety of ways to trim this content down, in order to find specifics. Zizi Papacharissi stated "online convergent media (e.g. internet) is frequently [...] developed and structured around organisation, liberation and mobilization of an individual's everyday reality". One way this information is organised is search engines. Google and other search engines can be used to find particular websites based on key words that are typed into a search box. Nevertheless, even these results do not accurately reflect the extent of all the available information. It would take forever to get through every search result so you may only be able to read the first few links. According to Google, the order of relevancy of your Google Search results are "determined by over 200 factors". As an example, to find this bit of information, I searched on Google, "how does Google choose the order of search results" and a massive 63 300 000 results were found. But I guess googling is a start. I have found it the easiest way to get information, therefore, this is why I, and many others, use it so often to obtain information. Though, these Google result pages are laced with advertisements, which can be confusing and just add to the information already filling the screen.

There are many other difficulties in regards to this information. The sheer volume can be overwhelming at times, especially when you aren't really sure what specifically you are searching for and only have a general gist. Sifting through the mass of websites is challenging, but I sometimes even find it a struggle when I know the specific information I am trying to find, as it is easy to get distracted and lost in the sea of knowledge. Even if I do find content online, there is the problem of knowing where is comes from, who wrote it and if it is actually correct, which can make it impossible at times. It is hard to differentiate between what is useful and what is incorrect. Thus, I rarely use information found online for academic purposes unless it is an e-book or a journal article. Day to day, on the other hand, I willingly use Google to find information. However, I always take it with a pinch of salt, as I have always been told never to believe everything I see written on the internet.

Furthermore, in recent times with the increase in social media usage, not only is there an abundance of questionably correct information, there is also an abundance of personal reflections on this information. Most recently, Facebook has launched a new feature in which you can more than 'like' a post, you can react in a variety of different emotions. However, on Facebook, this information is a bit easier to manage as you choose who you add as 'friends'. You also have the further ability of unfollowing certain 'friends' posts, if you choose that you do not wish for this information to end up on your newsfeed. -Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 20:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments
Hi Ihatewasps. I completely agree with you that it is easier to look up information on the Internet with the use of search engines! By typing in key words or phrases it can significantly narrow down the search of what you are looking for, however like you say there is still the problem that "too much" information pops up. This can make it difficult to determine what information is valid and invalid.

There is also the factor that the information we are reading may be a bias opinion from a writer who may have particularly strong views on a topic, but this may cloud their judgement of correct facts, therefore we may read these information and believe what we are reading is correct. As students, for the purpose of obtaining information it is vital to make sure that any information we extract from sources has been published and dated so that academics know exactly where we got our information from. So there are many factors to consider when we are using information for essays.

In addition, You say that when you are on google you get "laced with advertisements". I also experience this, which is frustrating and quite often have to deal with commercial adverts popping up tempting me into buying products i don't really want. How do you deal with adverts popping up on your screen? My computer has an app which i downloaded called "Adware" which eliminates these adds popping up all over a simple google search.

I also found it interesting how you wrote about the extra "emotions" that we can now use on Facebook. Does this dehumanise us as individuals? Because it may make us appear that we will fit into a category where we will either "like" something, "love" something, we "laugh", we are "shocked", "sad" or "angry" and that is where our emotions stop. This may mean that by simply clicking a button to show how you feel about a certain situation, face to face communication may be lost as people may feel they already expressed how they felt online, therefore do not need to contact the individual directly. What do you think about this idea? KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 10:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi KZillwood02. It's interesting that you mentioned bias, because I had completely forgotten that not only can information can be potentially incorrect but that some people's views could show favoritism or prejudice. In response to your question about adverts, I also have an extension on my computer called Adblock which does get rid of many adverts, although I find that sometimes there are still adverts on the page. It gets rid of the majority of them however. The new reactions on Facebook certainly attempt to fit everyone in a particular box on how they should react to posts. On the other hand, it is slightly better than previously in which people could only chose to "like" something and not even able to "dislike" a post. In regards to your question about the loss of face to face communication, if someone tags me in the comments of, say, a funny video, it is likely that I will both "like" the comment and also bring it up in conversation when I next see them in person, rather than simply "liking" the tag and never speaking of it again. Therefore, I don't believe it has affected me in this way, in fact I think it has opened up a new pathway of communication. But this might be different for some people. I'm not sure whether I'm the "average" Facebook user, as I use it mostly for messaging people. Do you feel like there has been a loss of face to face communication due to technology, especially with these new updated reactions? Thanks for your comment! -Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 18:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It is interesting how you touched on this culture of opinion and response."Everyone has an opinion nowadays"-is what most people say now,However, people have always had an opinion the only difference now is that we have uninterrupted access to platforms that allow us to express our opinion to the world.It is daunting to think about where we are now in terms of technology and the idea that there is still more to come is even more daunting than the latter.Pamela.nx (discuss • contribs) 11:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Pamela.nx, thanks for commenting! I agree that with new media and technology we have been given the opportunity to express our opinion with endless possibilities. Not only that, we are able to listen to lots of other people's opinions and views on subjects, all with a touch of a few buttons, when, in times gone by, we could only listen to the opinions of the people literally around us. Although, it has it's advantages, can all these opinions be too overwhelming. In the future will we be experiencing an even more extreme information overload as the information adds up day by day? -Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 18:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Educational Assignment/Wikibook Project Reflective Account
This project can be seen as a example of collective intelligence at work. Pierre Levy stated that "no one knows everything, but everyone knows something". This approach would suggest that collaboratively, substantial intelligence can be amalgamated. This is true to some extent as more ideas transpired as a matter of the collaborative nature of the project. However, there were some disadvantages to working as part of a larger cohort in this wiki project. Our team promptly decided to meet up face to face to discuss our plan in regards to the project. This meant we could easily talk through issues we had been having with the wiki and could show each other how to solve them. Additionally, we came up with a basic structure we believed fitted in with our chosen topic: Technological and Cultural Determinism. However, after this initial meeting, we discovered that others had already began to post on the discussion page, and a plan had already been devised by some members of a different team who were also doing the same topic. This was easily solved as we told them our idea and they incorporated it into their plan to create a hybrid between the two. This is when we realised why communication and collaboration was such an important part of this project, without such it would be impossible to get anything done.

Although, communicating on the wiki was a difficult task. In face to face communication, it is more straightforward to explain and describe how something is done. Expressions and emotions can be conveyed much more easily. We had already created a group discussion section on one member of our group's discussion pages, to deliberate our plans and help each other with minor formatting issues, for example, the wiki markup for tagging users and replying to users. When the larger collective split off into groups to do different subsections of the wikibook, determined on a first come first serve basis, we then decided to move our discussion from this member's discussion pages and create a subsection within the the discussion page of the wikibook. This was to ensure members of other groups could benefit from our discussions.

Wikibooks did not provide an efficient space to be able to discuss ideas as well as other social media. To keep up with conversation and discussion, you have to continuously check the wiki throughout the day. Although, there was the tagging feature, unless you went on the wiki to specifically check if you were replied to, you would be none the wiser. Whereas Facebook notifies you when you get a message, straight onto your phone, laptop, tablet etc. This is why our group also used a Facebook group chat as this enabled us to talk in real time which was more effective to organise times and places to meet face to face.

Another problem confronted was that after a while, our discussion became a big mass of writing that was getting complicated to negotiate who was talking to who and about what. To combat this, we created a second sub section to discuss matters. In this section, we numbered our replies to make it slightly easier to follow if you had not checked the wiki that day and had a few messages to catch up on and read. This worked far better.

Conversely, some advantages to such a project was the collaboration aspect. We created a section on tips for the wiki markup which was a confusing and complicated part of the wiki project. This allowed all of the groups to discuss how the markup was done which came in very helpful in terms of adding photos and adding an information notice. This links in to the idea of cognitive surplus, where the actions of the group adds up to more than the aggregated acts of individuals. However, cognitive surplus relies on the willingness to make an effort and engage to make the world a better place. The motivation for this project was more to get a good grade, there was no real passion to do this for the good of collecting information. Christian Fuchs states that everyone has equal knowledge and willingness to contribute, however this is not the case as free riders, those of which who try to get away with doing as little work as possible, emerged in this project. Although, this project did encourage teamwork and communication skills. Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 10:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments
I totally agree with your remark on how unsuited the wikibook platform was to easy group discussion, and I am impressed that the two sub-groups you mentioned were able to easily sort out the issue and create a hybrid plan. Of course, I also understand that the system is convenient for when contributors cannot easily contact other members, specifically as in your own example of shifting discussion pages for the benefit of other groups. In an abstract way, I feel this is similar to an important concept in the history of computers and information as a whole- that of standing on the shoulders of giants. With concern for the needs of others outside your group and the free, easy access they had to your information, others could have improved their ongoing work or otherwise found support in the research your group already accomplished. -ReluctantCyborg (discuss • contribs) 17:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ihatewasps I completely agree with you that Wikibooks were difficult to stay in regular contact with each other. I found that I quite often missed messages because I might not have been specifically "tagged" in a post, therefore I missed vital information which I had to scroll through loads of comments to find the answer too. It was also difficult to keep an idea of what the other groups writing about the same topic were discussing because the page became so full of comments it became tricky to identify who was saying what.

The groups doing "Technological and cultural determinism" as you already know, set up a simple table which clearly highlighted what everyone was meant to be doing which gave our topic a clear structure that also helped to eliminate overlapping of information.

Despite this, I feel like for this project, although we did manage to create a mass of valuable information, there were maybe just too many groups and people working on the same topic as it limited individuals to only research a small amount of information each, rather than grasping a wide variety of information about the subject for themselves. Although this was a limiting factor of using this type of platform however, everyone still managed to contribute to our chapter in the Wikibook.

I Like how you have used the quote "no one knows everything, but everyone knows something". This in my opinion is a perfect quote to empathise collective intelligence because it highlights that by collaborating and sharing our knowledge about a particular topic with others around us, we can together generate a substantial amount of information based around the topic.

It is also interesting how you have written about using other media platforms to keep in contact with each other. Facebook is a very efficient way to keep in contact with each other because you can set up a group chat with only the members you want to be in the group, the messages all clearly show in chronological order, and everyone in the group can easily follow the messages. This completely contrasts Wikibooks because if a message is not directly meant for you, but may contain relevant information for your research, then you may miss the message. With Facebook this is less likely to be an issues. Nonetheless it does empathise that a number of media platforms can be used corresponded of each other it order to communicate.

I also liked your section discussing "cognitive surplus" because it highlighted how all the group doing the Wiki project were willing to work together and share their knowledge with one another to get the chapter written.

I agree that Wikibooks did have many disadvantages for the project that we were undergoing, however in a way it did bring us together more as a group as we all wanted to work together to achieve writing the chapter, and it was also an easy way to help each other out because as Wiki is an open source, it allows us to comment, change or extend a piece of information that is already written on the page, therefore if you make any mistakes, someone may help you to correct them. I felt this was one of the most important advantages of using the Wiki platform do you agree? KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 20:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that there have been a lot of problems we had to deal with. It wasn't easy to communicate and get along with this. It don't understand why we were seperated into small groups, because we had to communicate with all members of our subtopic and not just within our small groups of four or five people. But I also agree that our incentive rather was to get good grades than to participate in a process and share knowledge for free. Some of us are still more passive thatn active online and just don't want to participate in such processes. Perhaps some of us are civic slackers as Banaji and Buckingham said? Mausjjudith (discuss • contribs) 11:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
Some very useful and detailed contributions made to the contents page of your chapter. Your work is fully referenced, and you include interwiki links and external links which enhance your text. The work you produce (Harold Innis and McLuhan in particular, as well as Schlegel) demonstrate independent research, and you made an number of early interventions on the page (formatting outline, adding suggestions of key scholarship etc.) which proved crucial in instigating the work of others, and in the closing stages, adding formatting and enhancing the page through using images and illustrations. Some really good exchanges through the exercise portfolio and on discussion pages. Very good work.

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 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 well-managed use of discussion pages using deployment of judgement relating to key issues, concepts and procedures

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 15:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)