User talk:Jackgpounder

Wiki Exercise No1
The Conservatives - how did they win? The 2015 UK General Election was to be one of the most unpredictable in living memory. Prediction Poll, after Prediction Poll said that the public could not makeup their mind with regards to who should hold the keys to number 10. Most experts were predicting a Lab-Lib coalition - or to the horror of some - an minority Labour government propped up by the Scottish Nationalist Party.

The Exit Poll was released at 10 o'clock, David Cameron was in the lead. The political map of the UK was changing, in some parts, beyond all belief. Results from the BBC show that all four corners of the UK were telling a different story. Scotland turned yellow – 56 out of her 59 seats elected an SNP Member of Parliament. England remained royal blue – 319 out of her 533 seats elected a Conservative MP. Wales remained red - the Labour party took 25 of her 40 seats; and finally the DUP took 8 out of Northern Irelands 18 seats. Due to this, and to everyone's surprise, David Cameron and the Conservative Party won 331 seats – an overall majority in the House of Commons and subsequently formed the first Conservative government since 1997.

How did the Conservatives win a majority when none of the prediction polls gave them a hope of getting over 326 seats; and also how could a government that was mainly only elected in England have any legitimacy to govern the rest of the UK: especially in Scotland?

UKIP only won one seat, however, won 12.6% of the UK vote; the SNP won 4.7% of the UK votes cast and yet won 56 out of 59 Scottish seats – a landslide. The Conservatives are the UK government however only won 36.9% of the vote. This clearly calls into question the government's legitimacy and its authority. The outraged me and subsequently has led me to favor electoral reform – as I am sure it has for many others. Since the election of this government, which the majority did not vote for, we have seen a right-wing agenda being forced upon the United Kingdom - the so-called “mother of Parliamentary Democracy”.

This raises the question: does the UK need electoral reform? The answer in short: yes, of course. The report by the Electoral Reform Society, suggests that the number of seats that each party gained did not represent the number of votes cast, and the First Past the Post electoral system is failing the UK electorate. The report also highlights the fact that UKIP came third with the share of the votes cast, but returned only one MP. Showing that the number of seats each Party gained does not equate to the number of votes.

The fact of the matter is simple: the Conservatives did not win the 2015 general election. They won the largest number of seats, yes, but they failed to win the public's backing. Under a Proportional Representation electoral system (PR), the true result would have been clear. It should have been a Hung Parliament, and the result should have been a lot tighter. The two largest Parties, as usual, would have been the Conservative’s and the Labour Party, but most shocking of all UKIP would have been the UK’s third largest Party, with the Liberal Democrats in fourth place. The untouchable SNP would have gained 30 seats – a step down from 56.

Marker’s Comment

 * This is a very lengthy post! You really ought to stick to the 2000 limit. It is really well written though, and very accessible. I think it probably works best as a journalistic piece, and would be vastly improved in two ways, firstly, through more effective and dynamic use of the wiki markup (i.e. more embedded links, citation etc.), and secondly, through feed this into the themes and concerns of the module (e.g. impacts of technology on reporting, voting, polling, the electoral process, political aspects of online deliberation etc. of which, there is plenty of recent scholarship). Real potential here!


 * A post of this standard roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor, although I think the quality of writing indicates the higher 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

 * These are absent. You have not adhered to the brief. Remember that your comments 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) 16:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise Two
Although I never used to be, I am becoming increasingly critical of social media and the power of which it holds. I find the pace of growth the industry is experiencing quite frightening, and as I become older I struggle more and more to understand why people feel the need to have a heavy online presence. However, I seem to share things without realising, I am almost unconscious to it.

I am quite visible online, although over the past year my presence has declined. I used to have many social media platforms such as: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and Tumblr. However, last year I decided that I would unsubscribe and delete some of my social media platforms - I now only have Facebook and I am currently thinking about deleting that.

I'm am very careful with what I place online now, although I never used to be. I've spent a lot of time deleting immature post and photos. I think that there is a danger allowing minors to use Social Media, as many will not think of the long-term consequences their digital finger print may leave.

One of the main reasons I'm becoming increasingly sceptical of Social Media is the lack of control I have to gard my personal information. It's important to remember that if you're not paying for a product, then you are the product, you are what makes the company money. Have you ever noticed that after you buy a certain product from the internet, adds appear from the same website on Facebook? I find this a huge invasion of privacy. This is the main reason I decided to delete all my Social Media Platforms, apart from my Facebook. I am even thinking about deleting my Facebook account, however, I do find the Messenger app quite useful and convenient - so it's not all bad.

Although, I dislike Social Media, I do see it's uses. I have personally seen how it can keep friends and family close, even when they live in different countries. Jackgpounder (discuss • contribs) 11:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise Three.
Information is, obviously, very important. As someone who likes to be an informed citizen, accessibility in regards to research and news stories, has become as easy as pushing button - quite literally. Most of us, especially those of a younger generation, carry around a device which has the world’s information at our fingertips. This can, at times, feel like we are being suffocated. Unless you use an Add-blocker, or a browser - which is not run by any of the search engine giants - then adverts can bombard you on a regular basis. I bought some kitchen utensils last week, for example, now I have adverts for Groupon advertising food processors and all sorts of contraptions.

Also, finding information can actually be quite difficult. When we type a sentence or phrase onto a search engine, there can be thousands of results. Trying to rake through these results and find the information that I am looking for can be time consuming. There are advance search options, but even then, there can still be a load of information that I have to look through. The vast personal information that is available due to the rise of Social Media can also add to this feeling of overload. We can now find out peoples name, place of work, relationship status, place of birth, and more by logging onto Facebook. I found out how my partner have voted in the Scottish Independence Referendum not by asking him, but by looking through his Facebook account. People can also share information across different platforms and news can travel like wild fire.

Due to all of this information, it is not hard to imagine how easy it is to become distracted. Whilst writing up work, it is easy to click onto Facebook, and before you know it, ten minutes have past. We have become so entrenched into our online personas that it creates a virtual reality for us to escape to. Looking through all of this information and sorting the good from the bad can, at times, feel endless. There is nothing more frustrating than not being able to precisely find the exact information that you wish – at the same time we are distracted by other pieces of information.

Personally, I try and scan read some articles and blogs to see if the information I desire is there. This takes less time, however I do worry that I might miss relevant information that could help me in my task. It’s not all bad, the vast information that is available has empowered democracy, in my opinion. Signing petitions, for example, is much easier. Also, voicing your opinion has never been easier, in some countries at least. Social Media has created the Citizen journalist, and anyone with the internet can start a blog. The vast information we have, used correctly, is not a bad thing. Blogs like Another Angry Voice (AAV) have taken off on social media, and are operated by people who would otherwise be unable to reach out to the masses. Information is not something to be feared, it is something that we can use to help further ourselves. Jackgpounder (discuss • contribs) 11:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

=Comments=

Its funny how much you can find out about friends or partners through Facebook, its essentially a form of stalking but we all do it! Interesting points about the effect of social media on citizen journalism; I know a lot of scholars believe this is decreasing the quality of journalistic writing, but the more the merrier I say. Sharing petitions is definetly easier and I will check out the blog you linked. I read your earlier posts and it is clear that you have an interest in politics, how long do you think until a majority of canvassing is done online rather than on the streets?! --WiKirsten (discuss • contribs) 15:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a great post, and I relate to a lot about what you say in regards to being easily distracted by social media and finding yourself skim reading. Skim reading in particular is something that I do when I'm trying to find something specific, like trying to pick up a quote. I often myself myself skim reading and taking something that works for my argument, say if I'm trying to put it in an essay, instead of taking the time to read the whole thing. I also agree with the idea that the amount of information available is actually empowering, people being able to speak to people from around the world and find out about other cultures really is a great thing. Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 22:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Project Evaluation.
I found the Wikibooks Project surprisingly quite challenging. As someone who had never used any Wikipedia or Wikibooks before, this was a new experience. Throughout my schooling, my teachers and tutors have always told me to stay away from Wikipedia, and never to sight it as a sours; due to this, I was quite sceptical, at first, with the whole project. However, I can now see that it has been a helpful and educational experience. This project has shown me just how much effort internet authors must put into their work in order for it to be a success. I also feel a sense of achievement to know that my group put together a Wikibook that is now going to, hopefully, help educate people and expand their knowledge on the topic.

I found the initial group experience was good, I think it was a brilliant idea to have sets of teams built into the wider group. The small teams made up of four or five members not only helped us socialise with our piers, but also helped us organise ourselves more efficiently. The first meeting also helped us circulate our initial ideas, and what we would like to research. Trying to organise the wider group, however, was slightly chaotic. I think this is the problem with large groups, there was so much information to read through each day, as people had ideas and wanted to share them, it was quite hard to keep up with the pace. The overall experience was quite good, once everyone was organised, everything seemed to go to plan.

The Wiki tasks each week were also very useful. If it had not been for this, I would have really struggled with the project. I found the topics of all three tasks quite interesting and lead me to think about how I use digital media. I had not really thought about how frequent my usage of social media is until this project. The Wiki tasks also helped me to keep on top of my research as there was a reminder to do so.

Jenkins et al partly defined participation culture as sharing creations with others (2006: pp 5-6), which is in effect what the whole Wikibooks project was about. We have created an online resource for people to educate themselves in the topic areas.

Overall, I think that it has been a good experience, and has personally opened up a new part of the internet to me. Jackgpounder (discuss • contribs) 10:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey Jack, Very interesting to we had quite similar experiences with this project. i also like how you have given a very personal account about the project as it highlights your engagement overall. what jenkins said is a great quote also as it really does link up greatly with the project overall Lubo95 (discuss • contribs) 09:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
You seem to be the main contributor to the section on integrating themes. This is an important section that ties the chapter together, and allows room for cross-over between the book chapters. A pity that this came in so late in the day (all of your book edits occur in the final hours of the project period) because had you made these edits earlier, it could have provided considerable opportunity for others working on other chapters to exchange ideas. Having said that, your contribs to the chapter page are well written, well research and make good use of wiki markup to help enrich the content.

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, although some ideas and procedures more securely grasped than others
 * evidence of independent reading of somewhat circumscribed range of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument featuring variable depth of understanding
 * satisfactory level of evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * satisfactory 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 variable independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content to a variable standard (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Satisfactory engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Reflexive, creative and fairly well-managed use of discussion pages using deployment of somewhat limited judgement relating to key issues, concepts or procedures

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 14:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)