User talk:Imcgrouther18

Hi, my name is Iain and this is my Wikibook discussion page. I am currently studying a Digital Media and Culture module at Stirling University and undertaking a project to create a Wikibook. This project will look at how people engage with and use Wikibooks. I will be using this page to help me engage with this project and some elements will be posted here.

=Wikibook Exercises=

#1 What Makes a Good Wiki?
My previous experience of online collaboration has mostly been limited to university group projects. When participating in these group projects, more often than not, a group page will be created on a social media platform (mostly Facebook) where the group members are able to communicate and share ideas with each other. These groups allow the members to share ideas or even documents to enable them to participate in group discussions and critique ideas without having to meet in person which can often be difficult due to distance or time constraints.

My experience of wiki engagement has been slightly different to social media engagement as, within a wiki environment, I am putting my ideas to the entire world of the web rather than simply sharing them with a few "friends" on Facebook. Therefore, I believe my ideas put forward more formally than they would be in a social media environment. However, I believe that the possibility of engaging with different types of people with differing levels of expertise could lead to a more engaging discussion on many subjects.

Another differentiation I have discovered between wiki and social media engagement is that it is a lot easier to share ideas on social media as I believe these platforms to be more user-friendly than wiki platforms. However, this may be due to my familiarity with sites such as Facebook or Twitter whereas I am a relative beginner at navigating wiki platforms. Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 14:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wiki Exercise #1


Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is in relation to Understanding and Engagement elements, it should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band overall.


 * Good. Among other things, good entries will make a clear point in a clear way. They will relate concepts to original examples in a straightforward fashion. They will make effective use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons). They may also demonstrate a broader understanding of the module's themes and concerns, and are likely to show evidence of reading and thinking about the subject material. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.


 * This post is at the lower end of this grade band. 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 (Understanding) criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets. Less instrumentally, and more in relation to this particular post, I think that you've made a good attempt to relate to the brief head-on, and to start thinking about qualitative differences. More depth needed at this level, though - for example, yes it's easy for students to get together via a social media group, but the problems start arising where some groups members may not be active or even regular users. In addition, what does that convenience do to the level of engagement and discussion in the group? Does it change the way a group works? The way it discusses? The way it thinks?


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts - none undertaken. This would effectively halve your mark.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 10:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

How visible are you online?
Personally, I do not believe that I am particularly visible in the online world. I often use the privacy settings on social media sites to ensure that any information I have on these sites is not accessible to the general online community and can only be accessed by those I allow. However, this does vary from site to site. For example, on Facebook my posts are only able to be viewed by my 'friends' (whom I must either add or accept) whereas my posts on Twitter can be viewed by anyone who 'follows' me which I have no control over unless I block them.

A simple Google search of my name will reveal only my Facebook page with no links provided to any of the other social media platforms I am active on, such as Twitter or Instagram.

What forms does that visibility take?
In most forms of social media, I try to present myself as I am in the real world. For example, on Facebook I can upload or tag myself in pictures, post a status informing my friends of what I am doing in the real world or post a link to a webpage about something that interests me. All of this informs my 'friends' about what I am like in the real world. However, this is not the only form of visibility I can present in the online world. I also have opportunities to present a different persona. For example, in the gaming community. On Steam (an online gaming platform), users can be represented as their online gaming persona rather than as they are in real life. Users are known by their usernames rather than their real names, they are asked for an avatar rather than a profile picture, etc. In these cases, their visibility is that of their online persona rather than their real life persona.

What kinds of information are available about you online?
Despite using the privacy settings on most of the social media platforms that I am active on, there is still a significant amount of information that any member of the online community could access fairly easily.

On my Facebook page, it is possible to find information about:
 * My place of work
 * My relationship status
 * My education history
 * Posts on my wall

Accessing my Twitter page would further reveal information about my location and date of birth. And anyone who found my Steam account would be able to see information about what kind of games I play online.

This is all information that can be accessed without needing to be my 'friend' or 'follower on the relevant social media sites. Further information is available to those who are my 'friends' on Facebook such as: mobile number, employment history, places I have lived, email address, family members, and they would be able to view all of my pictures and posts.

Who have you chosen to share it with and why?
The type of information I am willing to share and who I am willing to share it with will often vary from platform to platform. I am a fairly private person so I try to keep personal information as private as possible. Therefore, there are some things that I am not willing to share online at all, there are some things that I am only willing to share on Facebook as I know that the privacy settings protect that information from being shared with anyone outside those I have listed as 'friends', and there are other things which I am happy to share on platforms such as Twitter for anyone to view.

How much of this information is under your control?
I believe that I have fairly limited control over this information. I can control my actions online by deciding what type of information I share on which platforms. I am aware that I am able to set privacy settings on most social media sites to limit the amount of information that is shared with the online community but there will always be information about me on the Internet that is not under my direct control. For example, much of my online traffic is tracked and I leave data trails. Whenever I view a product on Amazon, there is often an advertisement for that product waiting for me the next time I log on to Facebook. Large companies are able to track my online habits and collect information about me without me being able to do much to control the information that are able to gather.

It is impossible to maintain an active online presence and not leave behind information about yourself everywhere you go. For example, take Snapchat for example, once that Snapchat has expired from your phone and the recipient's phone, that information does not disappear from the Internet, it still exists in a database somewhere and it could still be potentially accessed by someone.

How do you know?
The simple answer is I do not. I can try to make it more difficult for the online community to find out information about me by using the privacy settings on social media but there will always be information about me online which can be accessed.

How does this theme relate to the Wikibook Project?
This theme of online visibility has links to several of the chapters in the Wikibook Project such as:
 * The online/real-life divide
 * Privacy in a digital age
 * Technology as an extension of self

The online/real-life divide
Social media allows many of us to share aspects of our real-life with the online world: what we look like; how we are feeling; what we are doing; things we are interested in. It allows us to share who we are on a potentially global scale. In this sense, there is no true online/real-life divide as people are sharing the 'real' versions of themselves (although they may only represent the best parts of themselves).

However, there is another side to online platforms where it is possible to invent a new personality for yourself. For example, gaming platforms offer users often offer users the opportunity to create their own 'avatar' and give it its own separate personality and, in the gaming world, they are identified as their avatar rather than as their 'real' self.

Privacy in a digital age
It is becoming more and more difficult to protect your privacy in the digital age. Despite my use of privacy settings, it is still possible to find out a significant amount of information about me.

Technology as an extension of self
As I discussed earlier, many people use social media platforms as an extension of the self. They share who they are with the online world with the use of these technologies. Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 22:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments
Comment - I found the points you made for this wiki exercise very interesting. The layout of your work is clear and easy to follow, which enabled me to read swiftly through the post. I particularly enjoyed the point you made about being able to decide how you portray yourself online, as some information that is visible is out of your control. To explore this deeper, it is interesting to look at how this affects us in our day to day lives. For example, if someone was to upload inappropriate posts this could affect their future jobs. Employers can and will access your information to see how behave outside of a professional environment. Another interesting point you made was about large companies tracking your online habits. It made me think, “Is it possible to be completely off the grid on the internet?” The internet is such big part in people’s lives, even if someone does not have any social networking sites at all due to their private nature. Email is such a huge communication method within work places, so their details are still on the database. Even with people in positions of significant power and authority, for example, Hilary Clinton. Whilst running for President there was the whole debacle on the news about emails that had been leaked. It is safe to say that whatever you leave on the internet will always leave your print online. Some people may be under the illusion that they have control over what information about them is online, but your points show a different and arguably more realistic perspective to this. JayeRaiyatMedia (discuss • contribs) 19:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I like the ideas you have about creating an image of what you are like in the 'real world' and the opportunity we have to create different personas on different platforms. I think this links to the theories of creating 'I' and 'Me' personas based on the idea of knowing that what we are posting online is influencing what people think about us and what our lives are like.

I had not thought about what you said about making avatars when gaming online in regard to how we can be seen online. This is a good point in showing the different forms we can be visible in online. Although it is still an image connected to our online accounts, it is unlike our visibility on sites such as Facebook where we upload photos which show an exact image of how we looked at the time it was taken, in a more realistic form. I guess this allows people to create a new persona, as you said, and visibility with the confidence to not be judged by others so personally.

I agree with your comment that we provide a lot of information about ourselves and this can vary depending on the platform we use. Collectively, this results in a an accumulation of information and visibility. You added a point about your 'Steam' account. I don't own a Steam account, but I think what you said about people being able to see what types of games you play leads to new ideas about how we are visible online. It shows that the information about ourselves online is not just the facts about our name and age, but also about our hobbies and what we are interested in.

You said that you vary what you upload online depending on who is able to see the content. Thinking about what we are willing to share online is very interesting because it shows that what we see of other people's lives is not always the full picture and we should remember that. I have known people who, when hearing a name in conversation that they have not heard of, will search for them on a social networking site to see and judge who they are. I think maybe too much judging is done based on online profiles because, like you said, we tend to be selective with what we share.

Lastly, you mention that you do not know how much control you have over information and privacy settings. I agree with this and think that we should be more wary of the fact that companies can often put in terms and conditions that they own everything you upload as people often do not have the time or the patience to read these long documents. Ailsaharv (discuss • contribs) 21:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

How do you deal with the fact that there is so much information out there and that it is easy to be distracted?
I think that the abundance of information we have at our fingertips these days should be considered as a good thing. However, I do agree that it can be relatively easy to become distracted by the vast amount of information that it is possible to access.

It can sometimes be difficult to find exactly what you are looking for due to the vast amounts of information on the Internet. For example, if I am perhaps doing research for an essay and I Google the topic I am covering then it will likely produce page after page of relevant information but perhaps the angle I am looking to cover is lost amongst the information overload.

Or, for example, if I am on a news website reading an article that is providing me with information I need to know, perhaps about a new technology that is changing the way people communicate online, there will often be links to other news stories similar (or not so similar) to that news story on the page, it is possible to get distracted by these and, within a few clicks, I could be reading a story about a cat stuck in a tree.

Possibly the thing that bombards me with information overload the most is my mobile phone. At times, I am constantly bombarded by texts, Facebook/WhatsApp messages, and notifications from all types of apps. This is especially distracting if I am attempting to work on something important and I find it very difficult to resist the urge to check my phone every time it goes off.

However, if I switch my phone to silent, narrow down my search parameters, and remain focused on the task at hand, then it is possible for me to limit to amount of information overload I face.

Why have you come to deal with it in this way?
By narrowing down the search parameters, it limits the amount of information that will show up and I find it much easier to find the information that is truly relevant to what I am looking for.

When I am working on something important, I find that it is necessary for me to work in silence. If I listen to music or there are people talking around me then I get distracted in the real world and this leads to me getting distracted online as well and without meaning to I will find myself on Facebook or looking at memes. By remaining focuses on the task at hand, I am able to avoid these distractions.

Switching my phone to silent is the only way to ensure that I won't check it every time it vibrates. As soon as I feel my phone vibrate or ring, I instantly want to check it. I may be able to resist for a short time but eventually I will look at my phone and become distracted. But if I am not aware that I have a message or notification to check then I will not be distracted.

What are the contributing factors for the decisions you make in dealing with this abundance overload
Mostly it depends on how important the work I am doing is. If it is unimportant then I am happy to be distracted and it can often lead to me discovering interesting articles etc. However, if the work is important and deadlines are looming then I will do everything I can to avoid being distracted.

How has your workflow coped with the demands of your contribution to the Wikibook Project, and what are you and your colleagues doing to improve this workflow?
I have been quite busy with other assignments that have been due recently and have spent most of my time focused on them so I haven't been working as much on the Wikibook Project as I would have liked. Now that they are finished, I am ready to focus more on the Project. In order to do this, my colleagues and I are:
 * communicating through Facebook and on the discussion pages
 * arranging a 'real world' meeting
 * dividing the workload Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 15:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments
Hi Ian. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this entry into your Wikibooks page. I like the layout of your page too. I share your opinions on information overload. We are faced with a lot of useless links online. I also believe that our devices are very much the main distraction when we have essays to do. However, this is our fault as we have become so reliant on them. I find it interesting that you narrow down your search parameters as this is something that I do not do. I worry that something that would be useful to me in an essay would get filtered out if I narrowed my search down. Do you not have that fear? I applaud you for being so discipled in having complete silence when working. That is something that I cannot do. I NEED background noise or I feel like I cannot get any work done. For example, I currently have Only Fools and Horses on in the background as I am writing this. I think it is great that you and your group members are working so well on your Wikibook group project. What do you think has been the most challenging aspect of the project so far? Misslouisepark (discuss • contribs) 20:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with, I really like the layout, I wish I had set my own like that. It is easy to see your answers to the questions. I agree on the amount of distractions that you can find on the internet, especially memes. I share them on my facebook more than anything. Dividing the workload of the wikibooks is the best way to get through it. Our group has had someone take a leadership role to make sure everyone stays on the right track. Good luck!

Littlekatie1 (discuss • contribs) 13:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ian! I really liked the way you formatted your responce to address each part of the exercise seperately. It made your ideas far easier to digest as a reader; and I think I might apply a similar method to my work in future, as it made the task seem more approachable. In terms of content, I thought the way you considered the interplay between the online and offline world was really interesting. In my responce, I had only really considered 'information overload' as a factor present when I had actively opened a device with the intention of using the internet in some way. I had not considered the impact of things like smart phones, which mean the online can intrude on the offline in a way which feels uninvited - through physical sounds and images signaling that you have a new message or notification. Lucystewpid (discuss • contribs) 19:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ian, I enjoyed reading your discussion and I can relate to a lot of the points you highlighted on the distraction of the internet and the overload of information. Like all the other comments have pointed out, you have a well-arranged discussion page which made it easy to navigate from point to point. Like yourself I need to work in complete silence as I am too easily distracted, even the sound of someone eating will drive me nuts when I’m trying to work. You said that you find your phone to be the most distracting, do you feel that when you turn it onto silent you stop checking it altogether or will you still check it out of habit? I find that when my phone is turned onto silent I still look at it without even realizing. Is your phone linked to Facebook? I find that for me Facebook is the most distracting thing that will cause me to waste hours when I am supposed to be working. I saw on discussion page that you can turn Facebook notifications off, so this could be worth a try and may help with concentration. Jackhand1 (discuss • contribs) 21:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Sharing Resources, Ideas and Links
Initially, I did not feel that a wiki was a very effective way of sharing ideas or links as it felt quite clumsy and awkward to do it this way. However, as this project forced me to share ideas through my own discussion page, leave feedback on others and ask for help on discussion pages like the Wikibooks Reading Room or Wikipedia Tearoom, it enabled me to gain a better understanding of the markup language required to create wiki pages and effectively share ideas within the wiki environment. For example, learning how to "ping" someone enabled me to direct information specifically to one person or a group of people rather than just hoping that the intended recipient would see the information.

Also, sharing information on the discussion pages tended to be quite cluttered at first and it was easy for information to get lost in the clutter. But, as everyone's ability to use the markup language improved, the discussion pages started to be split into sections so that ideas could be compartmentalised and the pages became much easier to navigate.

However, despite the improvements that were made throughout the process of creating this wikibook, I still believe that there are much easier ways of sharing resources, ideas and links (such as Facebook or WhatsApp). I believe apps like Facebook and WhatsApp are much more user-friendly and thus, it is easier and more efficient to share ideas through these platforms rather than through wikis. Often, my group would arrange things or share ideas and information through Facebook or face to face and add these discussions to the wiki afterwards.

Feedback
I believe the feedback I received from my classmates has been extremely useful as it has allowed me to gain insights and different points of view into various subjects that I may not have had otherwise.

I think it was important that all members of the class, rather than a smaller section (such as my group or workshop), were able to review my work as I believe that this provided a wider range of opinions. As everyone was able to view these comments it meant that the process was fair, transparent and balanced. The fact that usernames were used meant that a lot of the time people would not be aware of whose work they were reviewing which helped to make the process slightly more impartial and confidential.

Maintaining Engagement with the Themes of the Module
I'm not going to lie, at the beginning I thought this wiki project was a bit of a pain and I would have much rather written an essay on one of the subjects. However, as I engaged more with the project, I began to understand why we had been assigned a wiki project rather than an essay. By participating and engaging in the wikibook exercises and the creation of the wikibook itself, I was able to really think critically about some of the themes we had been discussing in class and how they impacted me in my everyday life. I was also able to see some of the theories in practice.

For example, I found it particularly useful for my group's chapter of the wikibook (The Hive Mind and Collective Intelligence). By splitting the chapter into topics, we each went off and gained knowledge about different aspects of the hive mind and collective intelligence. Then, by combining our knowledge, we were able to create something that was better than they would have been individually. Individually, they each provided a little bit of knowledge about the hive mind and collective intelligence but, together, they provided a wide range of knowledge about the hive mind and collective knowledge as a whole.

By engaging in this wiki project, I was able to see some of the theories discussed in the lectures and seminars first hand. For example, how wikis form a part of the idea behind Web 2.0 by placing an emphasis on participation, interactivity and collaborative learning. Or explore the idea behind web users providing "free labour" as I was able to experience how much time and effort goes into something like creating a wiki page.

How I Presented Myself
As all the information I wrote on discussion pages or on the creation of the chapter could be viewed by anyone online, I believe this may have affected the way I presented myself. Knowing that the information would be publicly viewable encouraged me to write in a slightly more academic manner than if I was simply sharing my ideas among friends.

However, as the wikibook exercises encouraged me to discuss how the different ideas and theories affected me personally, I was less formal than I would have been if I had been writing an essay about the ideas in general. This allowed me to think about one of the themes discussed earlier in the module, interactionist approaches (discussed by Goffman), and how we often present different personas online. This project allowed me to combine two personas that I may have: the "social me" and the "academic me" as I was discussing different ideas within an academic sphere but also how these ideas affected me in my everyday life.Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 13:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments
Hi, I agree that at first it was harder to share ideas, images, ect. through wikibooks when it would've been much simpler to do so over instant messengers. Learning the "ping" feature was definitely a benefit to making communication easier. I also had thought that an essay would've been a more appropriate form of assessment at first, but as we worked on the project the pros of using wikibooks as a collaborative project became clear. Your idea of there being a "social me" and an "academic me" is something I have noticed in myself as well, and the wikibook's allowance for a combination of the two proved to form a new style of writing for me. Mmmorgaine (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I enjoyed that your response maintained an awareness that for, I would assume, the majority of people our course, Wikibooks was a new environment; as was the way in which we were assessed, and the ways that this was intrinsic to our experiences of the course. I agree that in general, social networking sites such as Facebook still seem like a much easier means of sharing resources and ideas, though I did find that as I did feel that everyone communicating with what seemed to be a mutually understood formality eased any awkwardness there may have been as many people working on our book did not know each other. Perhaps even this could relate to ideas of the way collective intelligence functions online, individuals who do not know each other working collectively to further their understanding of a subject as a group; as well as making the ideas more accessible to others.

I also agree that seeing others respond to my work with their ideas has been one of the most interesting and useful parts of the module so far; and I think it is incredibly interesting to see the vast number of ideas which can be generated in response to the questions which prompt these exercises. Lucystewpid (discuss • contribs) 22:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I find a lot of what is written in your reflective account very relatable to my experience of Wikibooks. I too had issues learning the mark-up language and I did struggle to get to grips with what is probably very simple tasks. I also like what you say about feedback, which was an element of the course which was helpful. I found having the discussion page there as sort of a massive collaborative notepad made for a really interesting feature. I also feel your point about gathering mass knowledge through the group work was a pretty advantageous way to carry out the work. Finally you talk about the notion of putting forward a number of identities which include the social me and the academic me. All in all I pretty much could relate to everything you talk about. Aidancc (discuss • contribs) 10:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi I thoroughly enjoyed reading your thoughts on wiki engagement, particularly your comments about relating the wiki exercises to the wider themes of the module and how this improved your ability to think critically about these concepts. As the weeks progressed, it became more and more clear that the different topics covered in the module all intersect in some way and, for me, establishing these links between theories and concepts really helped build up a more nuanced understanding of the material. I also really like what you said about self presentation and the forging of contrasting personas. I was definitely more hyperaware of how I was being perceived by my peers in an academic sense. The fact that my contributions were viewable to all really heightened my awareness of my own writing style, which resulted in one too many edits at times! I think the overall outcome is perhaps a good example of the interactionist approaches that state while the ‘I’ initially influences the ‘me’, the reverse also begins to occur. Tonyvall (discuss • contribs) 11:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)
The introductory section could have been expanded to give an overall summary of ideas, connecting those ideas and orienting the reader in such a way as to reinforce the notion of narrative and argument. It would have been nice to use Condorcet’s historical concepts as a way of introducing the themes and issues under the following discussion.

The discussion sections are generally well written, and evidence research, reading and draw from a fairly good range of sources and materials. Some use is made of the platform’s strengths to emphasise aspects of the argument, and evidence links between various concepts. I would have liked to have seen more in the way of interwiki links, however – these are links that would have enabled you to make the link explicit between the materials here in this chapter, and ,materials found elsewhere in the wikibook. This is especially so for those sections, for which little to no evidence of research and cited material appears - i.e. the majority of paragraphs in the Economics section, for example, where links should have been explicitly made to the Digital Labour chapter. This would have made a considerable difference to the authority and engagement aspects of your collaborative writing.

Some very interesting and fairly well written material on politics, aesthetics and aspects of the hive mind (although this last appears in repetition in a number of different places on the chapter – suggesting that delegation and joined-up working could have been better. Some interwiki links joining up the various sections would have made more of the platform’s functionality.)

References section evidences research, reading and sharing of resources. Very good use of wiki commons images. Overall, very well put together, a little more content would have been better, although there are specific considerations which have been taken into account there, especially considering the number of total students working on the chapter.


 * Excellent. Your contribution to the book page gives an excellent brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is an excellent 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 an excellent 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


 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, featuring discriminating command of a excellent range of relevant materials and analyses
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material to a wide degree
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument through highly original judgement relating to key issues, concepts or procedures
 * evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position);
 * originality in evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections);
 * significant evidence of independent critical ability


 * 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.

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content of an exemplary quality (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Excellent levels of 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 considered  judgement relating to key issues, concepts and procedures

2nd Marker Comments

Content (weighted 20%)

Although this entry starts with a rather weak introduction, most sections are well-written and structured logically. Some statements are left without any further references; however, this just happens occasionally. It might be within marking tolerance, but I would suggest a slightly higher mark on this particular entry - maybe 13.

Wiki Exercise Portfolio (Understanding weighted 30%)

There is good evidence of critical engagement, relational thinking and independent critical ability.

Engagement (weighted 50%)

I agree with the comments of the first marker: There is an excellent level of engagement and reflexive use of discussion pages.

Content (weighted 20%)
The introductory section could have been expanded to give an overall summary of ideas, connecting those ideas and orienting the reader in such a way as to reinforce the notion of narrative and argument. It would have been nice to use Condorcet’s historical concepts as a way of introducing the themes and issues under the following discussion.

The discussion sections are generally well written, and evidence research, reading and draw from a fairly good range of sources and materials. Some use is made of the platform’s strengths to emphasise aspects of the argument, and evidence links between various concepts. I would have liked to have seen more in the way of interwiki links, however – these are links that would have enabled you to make the link explicit between the materials here in this chapter, and ,materials found elsewhere in the wikibook. This is especially so for those sections, for which little to no evidence of research and cited material appears - i.e. the majority of paragraphs in the Economics section, for example, where links should have been explicitly made to the Digital Labour chapter. This would have made a considerable difference to the authority and engagement aspects of your collaborative writing.

Some very interesting and fairly well written material on politics, aesthetics and aspects of the hive mind (although this last appears in repetition in a number of different places on the chapter – suggesting that delegation and joined-up working could have been better. Some interwiki links joining up the various sections would have made more of the platform’s functionality.)

References section evidences research, reading and sharing of resources. Very good use of wiki commons images. Overall, very well put together, a little more content would have been better, although there are specific considerations which have been taken into account there, especially considering the number of total students working on the chapter.


 * Excellent. Your contribution to the book page gives an excellent brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is an excellent 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 an excellent 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


 * 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.


 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, featuring discriminating command of a excellent range of relevant materials and analyses
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material to a wide degree
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument through highly original judgement relating to key issues, concepts or procedures
 * evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position);
 * originality in evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections);
 * significant evidence of independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content of an exemplary quality (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Excellent levels of 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 considered  judgement relating to key issues, concepts and procedures