User talk:Ilmurray

Exercise #1: Online Visibility
Internet users are often not aware of how much personal information about themselves is available online. A quick Google search of your name reveals results upon results of information that you may or may not want to find such as forgotten profiles from websites you signed up for once years ago or embarrassing photos you didn’t know even existed.

I would consider myself to be very visible online, as I constantly use various social media platforms throughout the day. The platforms I use most often are Twitter and Instagram, and I use Facebook primarily for the messaging feature rather than the website itself. My online presence is broad in range as I have accounts on most of the major social media platforms including Snapchat and Tumblr. I also have accounts on smaller websites such as Letterboxd – a social networking website that operates as an online diary for logging films, and a forum for discussion.

With the amount of times we are warned that employers check social media profiles before hiring applicants, I am often well aware of what I publish on social media. My social media presence has provided me with writing job offers in the past, and I use websites like Twitter to network and improve my job prospects in journalism in the future, and this serves as a constant reminder that what I share on social media can have a permanent impact whether it was intended or not.

I am very open about what information about myself I share and who I share it with. I consider myself to be very opinionated, so I often share my thoughts on certain topics – even if they are provocative – on social media, especially on Twitter. I’m not particularly restrictive in regards to who I share information with – all of my accounts except Facebook, are not private so anyone can read or see what I post. However, as mentioned previously, I take a lot of care in not sharing too many personal details about myself. I also make sure that I do not share any information or photos that could have a negative impact on me in the future. It is hard to determine exactly how much information about you is available online, but I try to control it to the best of my ability.

Online visibility is very relevant to the notion of Always On culture as I believe that there is a certain pressure to share every single detail of your day-to-day life on social media. Our constant online presence means we are constantly compiling and adding information about ourselves, contributing to an information overload. There is also the issue of surveillance, and the idea that we may be sharing too much information about ourselves, which can then be used for marketing or surveillance purposes without being aware of it.

ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 22:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Iana, you make a very good point when considering how your online visibility could relate to potential employment prospects, it was something i never really considered. I do think that people can at times be careless when posting to social media as they may not realise who might see it, especially when the account is not private. Have you considered the role other users could potentially have on individual online profiles, for example, friends may post embarrassing content that is outwith personal control and yet still may appear on your public profile. Also, thanks for bringing up leterboxd, id never heard of it but checked it out and will definitely use it in the future. (Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 00:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC))

Hi Iana,

I find your post very interesting not only because you managed to draw consistent references to the topics we are dealing with in this module, allowing your readers to relate to in in a fruitful way giving the common background of notions and knowledge we now share, but also because of your personal use of online social media platforms. I am very impressed with your awareness of what your online presence entails in terms of your future horizons of employment and influences and with how your user-generated content resonates with your personal interests while maintaining a balanced and mature attitude. It would be extremely interesting to have the possibility to read your opinions on films and such you mentioned, do you think you could have added a link to your material here, so that we could look it up? Also, you mentioned Turkle's works; do you think there are other academics you have specifically thought of when writing this? It is always useful to back up your ideas with references, so that we too can find out more on your line of thought. In particular, you quickly mentioned the notion of dataveillance at the end of your entry; since you wrote that you are extremely visible online and very opinionated in your discussion within online platforms, do you think that it has an influence over the content you put up online and if so, to what extent? Good job! Absterloutely (discuss • contribs) 11:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I'd say you've written a highly engaging piece - including both concepts from the course and societal attitudes to social media (your own experiences especially). I certainly relate to your point about regrettable, dormant accounts and blogs - haunting your online presence, quite often we are conscious of what we are now posting, but not the historic trail left behind by our younger selves. I found it interesting how you utilise your twitter account to improve your career prospects - I hadn't really considered that avenue, so I'd say that's definitely one of my takeaways from your post amongst others. Your writing style comes across as very descriptive, that emphasis to detail will stand you in good stead moving forward - great work, keep it up!


 * 1) JamesFDTD99 (discuss • contribs) 21:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Exercise #2: Annotated Bibliography
Turkle, S. (2008). Always-on/always-on-you: The tethered self. Handbook of mobile communication studies, 121-137.

In this article, Sherry Turkle argues that our lives online and offline are no longer separate and that instead, we operate in a liminal space between them, which she refers to as the “tethered self”. Turkle demonstrates this by describing the public situations that we signal to others that we are connected to our devices and create a “private bubble” for ourselves. Through this article, Turkle develops a more nuanced and layered argument in the way that she states that our lives online blend with the real world. This article will be useful for the collaborative essay because the question revolves around a quote from Sherry Turkle, who also wrote this article. It would be beneficial for finding more information in regards to her research on always-on culture, and gaining a more thorough understanding of her argument.

ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 14:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Hello Iana,

I think this bibliography does a really good job of giving a concise summary of the article, within the word count expected from annotated bibliographies. The only criticism I have is that you do not really mention weaknesses or conclusions from the article. The information given and the "Always On" topic is pretty terrifying and actually reminds me of an article from the Guardian that talks about Facebook's response to backlash about their site being linked to mental health problems. Their response is worrying as it advocates more time in the 'private bubble' and seeming to miss the point of the original backlash. LeKinibb (discuss • contribs) 12:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi

the annotated bibliography gives a good short idea of what Turkle’s article is about.

I think it is very important to look into other books/articles/work she wrote to get a better understanding of her argument as you said, especially when your collaborative essay is about a quote from her. It might even, depending on how far apart they are written, show a development of her thoughts through time.

Turkle’s argument that there is no real border between being online or offline reminds me of Boyd’s argument that the online is always around the corner and that even though we are not literally online at a certain time our devices are still always connected to the network. If you haven’t thought about this yet, it would make a good support for Turkle’s argument and for the essay.

As mentioned in the comment above, the bibliography lacks however a limitation of the article or a conclusion that Turkle draws from her argument. Furthermore I would work on the reference itself again; it misses a bit of information as the article is originally from an edited book by Katz. I would suggest you take another look at the referencing handbook here.

Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 17:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey,

I found your post interesting because I also looked at a piece about Always On Culture so it's nice to see a comparative piece. The bibliography gives a good summary of what this article is about so I can see that it would be useful for the research needed for my group's collaborative essay. I think the only thing that I might have added in would be some of the limitations that the piece might have to review just how relevant this piece may be for further research but overall I think it provided a good overview of the piece. Lauraf303 (discuss • contribs) 22:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I found this bibliography to be a concise summary of the article and I can see how it would be extremely useful to your collab essay. It is scary to think just how connected we are and Turkle uses great examples to show this. As with the other comments the only slight criticism is not mentioning any limitations. Other than that I think you have done a great job! --Funkyalex (discuss • contribs) 21:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi { {reply to |ilmurray} },

I think this was an excellent choice for an article your annotated bibliography- it applies so directly to your topic of Always ON Culture. Your summary is direct and to the point, and I can see how it would be useful when utilizing this article for your collaborative essay. Yurmkle's study sounds incredibly interesting, and I can relate to the topic she chooses to study of our devices and creating a "personal bubble". My only critique is that the bibliography could have been a bit more detailed, but I also think that the fact that this annotated bibliography is concise will be great when referring back to the article later. Overall, great job! #Mom00107 (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Exercise #3: Collaborative Research Exercise
Hi Thank you for your positive feedback, it is greatly appreciated. I was struggling to find limitations for the article purely because I thought it was so relevant for the collaborative essay, but in retrospect, I should’ve acknowledged this in my annotated bibliography instead of omitting it completely. At least I know now where I can improve in future assignments.

I do also find the concept of “Always On” rather terrifying, as social networking has integrated to such a great extent in our lives that it is difficult to draw a distinction between the online and the offline world. The article from the Guardian you linked is quite disturbing since Facebook’s response was to spend more time using it, when research shows that social media can be a detriment to your mental health. This study from the Education Policy Institute, for example, looked at the effects of social media on the mental health of young children and found “a clear association between longer time spent on social media and mental health problems”. Turkle's concept of the "private bubble" suggests that social media is closing ourselves off from the world, so for Facebook to encourage us to use the site more often would reduce our opportunities for healthy human connections even more.

The article reminded me of an article I wrote for a journalism assignment: I asked a number of people who had taken breaks from social media why they chose to do so, and the vast majority of them said that it was because it was taking a toll on their mental health. Social media had instigated many problems for them including lower self-esteem, anxiety, and depression. After they took a break, some for at least 6 months, they felt much healthier and happier. I wonder then if social media is as necessary as our heavy usage suggests, if it eventually causes so many mental health problems.

I saw that your collaborative essay will be focusing on online identity – it might be important to consider whether we really have an online identity, as from what we have established, the boundaries have become more blurred between online and offline identity. What do you think?

ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 12:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey No problem at all for the feedback -got to do what we’ve got to do-. I keep worrying I am being too brutal or formal with the way I am giving feedback so I am glad it was positive for you and -hopefully- helped with future structures. It is also understandable that you didn not want to highlight faults, especially if it seems like a strong article for your collaborative essay – I hate realising problems in sources if I have decided it is what I want to write about!

“Always On” is a really terrifying subject. Especially at the moment, every day there seems to be another revelation about data harvesting and targeted marketing – at times it feels like enough for me to put on a tin-foil hat and take refuge with conspiracy theorists. Have you tried downloading all of your data from Facebook yet? I started the download but it was nine and a half gigabytes! I did not think I have used Facebook that much, I do not even think I have made a public post in over a year. The article that you linked seems really interesting – I have been using sites like Facebook since I was in primary six or something, it is crazy to think of how long it has been since I signed up for them – crazy to think of how much time I have spent peering over them too! I think the idea of the “private bubble” sums it up well, it can be so easy to envelop yourself into virtual worlds, even in public spaces.

I have considered going ‘off the grid’ before. I just think I depend heavily on the messaging and instant contact aspects of the sites too much. Without Facebook etc it feels as if it is too easy to fall out of the loop, or miss plans or interesting events. I do find that I feel better about experiences if I try and keep my phone away though, there are so many times where glancing at a screen can totally distract you and it can sometimes be difficult to get back in to the swing of things.

Our group is going for the opposite end of the spectrum with online identity. We aren’t discussing online identities and how they can have an effect on personal lives. We are discussing the idea of anonymity in online spaces and how that can become a simulate a different life for people. We are covering social media, videogames, dating apps and anarchic anonymity within sites like 4chan and, to an extent, tor and the dark web.

I think I have managed to do nothing but chat about myself there, oops. How is your group essay going? Are you one of sensible few that got everything finished in time? I keep trying to beef up my contribution amount on our planning page but it gets to the point where I feel as if I am just posting the same thing, or even topics I should be focusing on in my essay. LeKinibb (discuss • contribs) 15:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I think with the way these discussion pages are set up and how Wikipedia operates, you will inevitably sound a little bit formal. These discussion pages are very different from an instant messaging program because you can send a short message to someone and you will receive a reply instantly (or not, depending on your social media etiquette) whereas with Wikipedia you send these large paragraphs where you are responding to multiple questions at once. You certainly have to adapt the way you communicate depending on the platform. Also, you're definitely not being brutal, I've received feedback that is a lot harsher! I depended on my article quite a lot in my collaborative essay and I ended up noticing some weaknesses after studying it more intensely - clearly no matter how useful a source, there will always be some setbacks - when you're summarising a text for a 200 word annotated bibliography, I guess it's easy to miss these things.

The targeted marketing issue is something I have been thinking about a lot more. Just yesterday, I was talking to a few friends about the weird targeted ads we have received after making one search on Google or Facebook. I know someone who received a lot of targeted ads for something she spoke - not even on her phone! It's a bit terrifying thinking about what data our devices are harvesting at this very moment. I saw this Buzzfeed video (I know, Buzzfeed, please don't judge me) where this guy conducted an experiment to find out if his phone was listening to him by saying the word "pram" every day with the intention of receiving targeted ads for prams. It didn't work but as I've said, there have been instances where people receive targeted ads for items they didn't even search for.

I did try to download my Facebook archive but it failed because the file was too big! It's so overwhelming to think about how much information Facebook has about me, it's a bit scary. I wish I could use social media less but it is such an integral part of my every day life that it would just be counter-productive to go "off the grid". I do have a bad habit of distancing myself from group conversations by going on my phone - it's more of a habit to get out of conversations to be honest, but it means I'm less sociable than I'd like to be.

Your collaborative essay topic sounds really interesting! There is definitely a component to social media where you can decide to only show the best parts of yourself to others and this creates this idealistic, false identity. I definitely feel like I'm a more outgoing person on social media compared to my very introverted self in "real life". On social media, likes and comments provide a sort of validation so I often feel the need to be as funny and interesting as possible to get that continuous validation.

Our essay has gone pretty well! We still have one person left to add their section and then we're all done! We realised that most of us went over our personal word limit so we had to cut quite a bit. This contribs thing is stressing me out though, 3000 characters doesn't sound a lot until you feel like you've written a substantial amount, only for it to be 1000 characters.

Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 13:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Exercise #4: Collaborative Essay Reflective Account
According to Banaji & Beckham (2013: 13), “the Internet affords new forms of interaction, participation, and engagement.” This is exemplified by the platform of Wikibooks which is made unique by its aim to share information from user engagement. Wikibooks is a platform in the same vein as Wikipedia which encourages user participation. Unlike older iterations of media spectatorship, Wikibooks is part of the many emerging tools which have developed a participatory culture, in which the roles of consumer and producer are no longer separate (Jenkins, 2006: 3). Users may consume the platform passively by observing the content made available, but they are also invited to make changes by contributing their own knowledge.

Visibility is emphasised on Wikibooks because the platform makes every user’s participation very transparent – you are able to all the content and contributions each user makes. Through participating in the Collaborative Essay Project, the open accessibility of every user’s page means that I am able to provide help to others and they will often help me in return. Wikibooks facilitates a mutual exchange of information and harnesses cognitive surplus (Shirky, 2011: 17). Cognitive surplus is exemplified through Wikibooks as the collective intelligence and time spent on a single project as a group of individuals produces a great deal more content (Shirky, 2011: 24). However, like the exercise in which we discussed online visibility, I also have to be considerate of what I share on Wikibooks, much like other social media platforms I use on a more regular basis.

From my experience using Wikibooks for the Collaborative Essay Project, I have found that the platform is a particularly useful tool not only for cooperation within my own group, but with every group involved in the project. For this reason, Wikibooks provides a multitude of options for sourcing tips, ideas and resources. The ability to add a table of contents and headings allows for a more structured and organised discussion than face-to-face discussion. When our group did hold face-to-face meetings, the discussion page operated as a space to document everything that was said, like taking minutes in a meeting.

I believe that a community is fostered from Wikibooks as a sense of camaraderie is created from the way that people not only want to succeed within their own group, but also through the way that they provide assistance to other groups. The openness of Wikibooks allows users to offer advice and help, as well as make edits that could ultimately improve the content on the pages.

Digital commons are “resources shared under an open licence” with an “emphasis on freedom, open access and sharing.” (Rosnay & Crosnier, 2012: 2) From my experience of using Wikibooks, it is evident that the platform exemplifies the notion of a digital commons. The platform is not privately owned and emphasises the sharing of knowledge and content. As content from Wikibooks and Wikipedia are generated through a collaborative process, information is free and owned by the public.

Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 21:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Hi Iana! I have just finished reading your reflection on using Wikibooks as a collaborative platform, you speak quite highly of the website and the functions that it has to offer. I agree with your statement that it stimulates user participation and somewhat blurs the boundaries between the consumer and the producer, as we have the freedom but also the control within the website and of the content that is published. As media convergence was my theme for the collaborative essay, it is interesting to see others relate the platform to such a concept in terms of participatory culture but also with regards to collective intelligence. It is extremely relevant with Wikibooks and the idea of a community of users contributing to a specific page, or a particular topic of their own interests. However, although participatory culture and collective intelligence have evolved in this 'new media' era, with any sort of technological development, comes its limitations. Of course, a platform such as Wikibooks brings about the growth of the concepts mentioned, but in terms of collaboration, there can be seen to be a restriction in relation to the notion of interference as highlighted by Henry Jenkins. With any collaborative exercise whether that be an activity in class or an assignment such like the one we had to complete on this platform, comes the idea of compromise. Some view it in the sense of losing creative control and not truly having the freedom that the platform aspires you should have. This was just a different angle that I thought about whilst reading your advantages of such information-sharing platforms.

I like your point on the emphasis of how user content is, to a great degree, visible for the entirety of their users to perceive - whether actively involved or passively observing. It is a very unusual thing to know that your content is out there for whoever wishes to view it and can even edit whatever you have posted without needing any sort of consent to do so. It really does make you reconsider other platforms in which you have given out your personal information to and the fact that you never really think about how companies will abuse that. I agree with saying how you still need to be careful about what you post on Wikibooks although we are given, to a point, some sense of anonymity as we do not give personal information to the same extent as we would on other social media platforms - e.g. a profile picture or even our real names.

I concur that Wikibooks was a platform that I found useful when it came to the collaboration element of the assignment. It does allow, as you said, for a more structured plan and allows all of the information that is discussed on the page to be visible to any of the group members if they wish to go back and see certain information which is much more efficient than a face-to-face conversation in that sense. It does give group work a new feel to it as the majority of it is online, meaning that there is much less physical contact but involves a lot of communication internally. It also does make us a bit more involved as everyone needs to keep up their part of the assignment as whatever you do is timestamped, disallowing certain members not to contribute or lag behind.

There is a community feel to the website that I quite liked as well. It differed from other assessments as we were able to see how other groups work was coming together and were able to read their final piece which would be very unlikely to happen outside of a platform such like this one.

In the sense of somewhat legal requirements, the platform strays away from most restrictions seen on other media websites and does offer a form of online emancipation. Quite like you mentioned in your section on digital commons, the website is free for anyone to use for intellectual purposes, it is the idea that it is owned and created by the public for the public.

Overall, I think you gave an excellent account of your time using Wikibooks and related your opinion well to theoretical terms that were explored within our engagement of digital media and furthered the concepts to relate to the platform.

Well done!

Amm00137 (discuss • contribs) 13:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Iana!

I have just finished reading through your piece about wikibooks and it seems that you have a lot of good things to say about it, it is a bit of a change from some of the other ones I have read so decided to comment back on yours as I share similar views. I think it is interesting that you have added in the different functions of wikibooks, in terms of being a passive user and only consuming the information from it or being more of an active user and actually posting on the site. Obviously for these exercises we have all had to be active users so I kind of forgot about the fact someone is able to just come and view the information that's put up here without making any further interaction with it.

I definitely felt as well that wikibooks has created a community environment for the likes of our collaborative essay to have worked on, although I did find it quite daunting at first as a platform as it was quite unlike anything I had used before. In fact, I'd barely even heard of it, so it did take me a while to try and work around navigating it in the first place. Another part that you mentioned that I also liked was about how visible everyones work was so it was easy to either seek help from others or give help to others. It was good to be able to read through work and make suggestions or pose questions a group maybe hadn't considered before. This isn't something that can be done on many other platforms, or certainly not anything related to work for university before, I think it's this that has really built that sense of community. As well, I've seen a lot of people discussing things that they have clearly been discussing offline as well as online so it's nice to see that these conversations can transcend into the real world as well.

It seems like myself, that you like to keep things easily laid out and organised which again is another reason I liked wikibooks as it gives you the option to have things in tables and under headings etc. It makes everything look concise and neat and it's obviously easier for you to then find things, this definitely has been a plus point from me when I realised how to format things correctly on the website.

It is different as well from most other platforms as you mentioned too, because of the openness of it and the focus on digital common too. It is interesting to see that both wikipedia and wikimedia sources and images etc can be used on this platform, obviously correctly referenced. It certainly does feel like even beyond this module it could provide worth in other aspects of academic work. Even reading some of the other textbooks on here has been quite interesting, even when some of them are from about 2005.

Overall, I really liked your piece, I thought the references that you brought in were very relevant and you critiqued the platform in a good way bringing forward a lot of useful and relevant points!

Well done and have a good summer :)

Lauraf303 (discuss • contribs) 11:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: DISCUSSION, ENGAGEMENT, CONTRIBS

 * Engagement on discussion pages of this standard attain the following grade descriptor for contribs. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this will give you a clearer idea of how the grade you have been given relates to the standards and quality expected of work at this level:
 * Outstanding. In addition to the criteria for 70%+, work at this standard demonstrates outstanding critical understanding of the exercise and is able to produce sophisticated lines of argument, and is highly original. Among other things, contributions will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. They will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including formatting, links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. They will address the assignment tasks in a thoughtful and transparent way on the Discussion Pages. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts, justifying decision-making with transparency. They will be informed by serious reading and reflection, are likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader as well as for fellow researchers collaborating. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.

Students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.


 * The evidence from your contribs shows that you engaged with the collaborative process from most days that the project was live. There is plenty of evidence from your contribs that your engagement was sustained, meaningful and consistent throughout most of the project period. Not only were you engaging with your own group’s work, but you were also contributing to discussion with other groups, and in completely different themes – which suggests that you saw the value in the way that the book’s themes overlap significantly. In the round, these were considerable entries in terms of moving the project forward, and an appropriate level of engagement with the community is in evidence. Well done!

Evidence from contribs to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of editorial activity as evidenced through ‘contribs’). These are primarily considered for quality rather than quantity, but as a broad guideline: o	Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial” o	Items on a contribs list that are <1000 characters are important, and are considered in the round when evaluating contribs as a whole because of their aggregate value


 * Several contribs registered as being under 1000 characters, with a mix of others that are “significant”, “substantial” and a significant proportion of contributions that could be regarded as “considerable” to the project. This is sustained, dedicated engagement with the collaborative process. Absolutely outstanding work.

•	Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages o	Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration o	Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay o	Evidence of peer-review of others’ work


 * Again, very clear. You clearly pushed your arguments and encouraged others to comment/respond, helped others in their work, and there’s plenty of evidence of reading, application and discussion of ideas. You did your research with regards to the platform’s affordances, and shared what you learned in various discussions. Your contributions to the book pages and discussion pages clearly stand out. Excellent.

•	Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages o	Clear delegation of tasks o	Clearly labelled sections and subsections o	Contributions are all signed


 * You were clearly collaborating on the discussion pages. Some of the organisation here is a little haphazard (which is half-expected, as wiki management is a challenge!), but overall the discussion is easy to follow. You have also signed where necessary, so it’s easy to see where your contribs fit into the overall discussion.

•	Civility. Your conduct is a key component of any collaboration, especially in the context of an online knowledge-building community. Please respect others, as well as observe the rules for civility on wiki projects. All contribs are moderated.


 * You conducted yourself exceptionally well. Good work!

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
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 the making criteria as outlined in the relevant documentation, it should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band overall:


 * Excellent. Among other things, these entries will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. They will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. They will address the assignment tasks in a thoughtful way. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts. They will be informed by serious reading and reflection, are likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.


 * This work represents an effort to engage critically and thoughtfully with the exercise briefs. I note that you start off tentatively, with small contribs and quite general edits. By the end of the project period however, your confidence has evidently increased, considerably. This is shown through the way you use the platform, engage with other others and apply critical concepts from indeprendent reading, to a number of subject areas. Very good work indeed!


 * Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have perhaps gone some way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would have made a difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are especially good, and build up nicely over a period of time. You have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion. This is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about, and you have understood all too well the potential and power of the format. You have engaged in discussion with other users in an open and critical way – that is to say, you've responded to what other people are saying and are contributing meaningfully to discussion. You therefore show evidence of a pretty solid understanding of the notion of wiki as community. Arguably, you also understand some of the civic elements of wiki technology.

General:
 * Reading and research: evidence of critical engagement with set materials; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material – this is especially clear, particularly towards the end of the project period.


 * Argument and analysis: well-articulated and well-supported argument; 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); evidence of independent critical ability. Again, builds up nicely through time.


 * Presentation: see above comment on use of wiki markup and organisational skills.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)