User talk:Jackhand1

Hello, I'm Jack and I am using wikibooks as part of an educational class project. I shall be using this space in order to reflect on the reasons as to why people use online content such as wikibooks and Wikipedia. Jackhand1 (discuss • contribs) 13:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

#1 What Makes a Good Wiki?
07/02/17 This first discussion that I will be talking about will be on my experience with social media and looking at the qualitative differences between social media engagement and wiki engagement.

Personally I engage and contribute to social media far more than I do with wiki as this is the first time that I have contributed to wiki page. On the other hand I might post a video or leave a comment on facebook on a daily basis. Even though I view the information that is available on the wiki sites on a regular basis and wikipedia is very often the first site that I will look on when I wish to learn a quick fact about something, however I will never contribute to it's content (until now). This may because social media sites such as facebook allow you to share information quickly and easily and are, to me much more user friendly.

It seems that although facebook and wikipedia are designed for everyone and anyone can contribute, there are some big differences. For instance facebook is less formal and people can post updates on their personal life or photos of themselves. When I am working on a group project we will always create a facebook group to share ideas and communicate with one another and when one of the members of the group doesnt have a facebook account which is very rare, we use whatsapp instead. When it comes to Wikipedia it would be bad practice to lift information directly from the site as some of it's content has not been factually checked. However for me it is a much more reliable source of information than facebook or twitter as often when false information is added to a wiki site or the content doesn't meet the necessary standard it will be deleted by an admin. This is not the case for social media sites where factually inaccurate information will be added daily as there is no filter as to what people can post. However I feel it is important for people to have social media as a platform to share their ideas and engage in discussion and debate, as through discussion we can often reach a better conclusion.

I said before that facebook and wikipedia are made for everyone of all ages to interact with and share information. This is true although I feel that platforms such as facebook have focused more on appealing to a younger generation when it comes to contributing to the site. Although younger people may use Wikipedia to learn from I don't believe they would find it as easy as they would on facebook to navigate through the site to create there own content and contribute to discussion.

JackJackhand1 (discuss • contribs) 16:07, 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.


 * Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory entries may try to relate an idea from the module to an original example, but might not be very convincing. They may waste space on synopsis or description, rather than making a point. They may have spelling or grammatical errors and typos. They might not demonstrate more than a single quick pass at the assignment, informed only by lecture and/or cursory reading. They may suggest reading but not thinking (or indeed the reverse). The wiki markup formatting will need some work.


 * This post is at the upper end of this grade band, so a little improvement will go a long way to attaining a higher mark. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and (especially for this, perhaps, the Understanding) criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets. Less instrumentally, and more in relation to this particular post, you tend to write by making assertions, but don't follow up on them. This is a relatively simple fix, but it does involve you really engaging with the process. On the evidence here, I think you can do this, but I absolutely encourage you to read more and devlop your arguments through engaging with the ideas in more detiail.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are ok, if a little brief. Remember that the comments are "worth" as much as posts themselves. The reason for this is not only to help encourage discussion (a key element of wiki collaboration!) but also to get you to reflect upon your own work. This can all, of course be used to fuel ideas that might form part of your project work. I like that you have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!) and also that you are beginning to discuss 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 - arguably the civic element of wiki that you ought to be thinking about, which you clearly are). I'll give a specific example: you mention in one of your comments that The younger generation are drawn towards the easier choice which makes social media far more appealing. Well, this may well be true (is it?) but for this kind of claim, which at the moment reads as an assumption, you need to provide some kind of evidence. In addition, you don't explorewhy the younger generation are drawn... and also finally, what you mean by younger generation. At this level attention to detail is everything. There's the beginnings of some interesting ideas and approaches in the mix, but these need development, which I think you are probably very capable of doing.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

(comment). The points you make on how Facebook relates to younger people are valid, no doubt they find it easier to navigate. However, Wikipedia, although rarely rated as a suitable academic source, for younger people can definitely give them basic knowledge on the subject they are exploring and give them a foundation to research further with more credible academic sources. When talking about how Facebook is more appealing to younger people, I think it is interesting to take into account how McLuhan (1911-1980) believed that communications technologies such as Facebook have the power to determine the way we look at the world and interact with it. I feel this is quite key with young people, as Facebook can have just as much reliable information as there can be official news pages. However, the comments on these pages can be subjective, where people can submit videos as you do or pictures on social issues. For example, people can post propaganda against immigrants, a popular current issue, or focus on terrorism around the globe which could spark mean world syndrome, which affects people in their perception of the world as more dangerous than it is. As you said, social media can arrive at a better conclusion through discussion but I think it can be quite powerful in how it affects peoples views on the world. All three platforms prove to be quality, however they do have their downfalls with them either being informal or featuring inaccurate information. JayeRaiyatMedia (discuss • contribs) 23:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

(comment). I agree with with your point that sites like Facebook are targeted towards younger people, more so than Wikipedia, do you think this has anything to do with the fact that Facebook is a private for-profit site whereas Wiki mainly runs on user donations? In my opinion Facebook has to appeal more to young people because they are the larger target audience (they tend to be more used to technology, and use it more frequently) and as a private business their aim is to make a profit. Do you think that the fact that sites like Facebook focus on making a profit affects the sites ability to be used as a reliable source of information? KerryFromThePub-Round2 (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

#2:Visibility and Data Trails
In this discussion, I will be talking about my own personal presence online and the platforms in which I have chosen to interact with and share personal information and in the process the data trails which I am leaving. I would say I am relatively visible online and that I am easy to find on certain social media sites. For example, by searching my name on Facebook you would be able to see some information such as my birthday, what school I went to and a few select photos. Once I have added you as a friend you would be able to see many more photos and more information such as where I live, my email address and even my phone number. One of the reasons I have decided to share my phone number is because I occasionally use the Facebook messenger app to call somebody and often a Facebook friend will call me if they don’t have my number, so it makes me more accessible. This however isn’t always a good thing in my opinion. There have been times when somebody has gotten in touch with me by leaving a Facebook message. If I don’t want to talk to that person it can be hard to avoid them as if I were to read the message it would let the sender know that I have read the message and what time I saw it, thus making it quite awkward to ignore. (However, this example usually only applies to my work colleagues trying to get me to cover a shift).

I am also active on snap-chat. You can add someone on snap-chat either with their phone number, user name, snap code or the add nearby feature which allows you to add people which are in the area and close by. I personally have the add nearby feature turned off as it can allow random people to add you. However, I am not sure as to how in control of my information I really am as on a few occasions as I have been sent messages by people that have tried to add me via my snap-chat name and I’m not sure where they obtained that information. I would say that there is not much of a data trail left on snap-chat as once you send a picture or a video to someone it disappears after they have watched it. Although, for this discussion I looked online to see if there are any ways in which to save a snap-chat picture and there seems to be many different methods, including using apps which have been designed for that purpose alone. Therefore, you can never be sure that someone isn’t saving your pictures and videos or personal information when you think they have been destroyed.

In my younger days, I played Xbox online against other players. Xbox one live accounts allow you to display your real name to anyone that you are in a game with or who searches for your gamer tag. However, to avoid hate mail I decided it was best to keep this information hidden from the random people I was playing against. As often people can get worked up and say things through an online platform such as Xbox live, that they wouldn’t say in real life face to face. For that reason, I decided to keep certain information private on my Xbox account. Jackhand1 (discuss • contribs) 19:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Jack, I enjoyed reading about your experiences online. I found it to be quite alarming when you discussed your time as an Xbox player. As someone who does not game, I was not aware that your information was required. It is quite alarming that your name and email address is displayed in this way, especially when many young people play games. It does not seem safe. Do you think that this should be changed to protect younger Xbox players? I also found the topic of Facebook humorous. Would you say that you feel particularly safe on that app knowing that people can contact you even when you do not want them to? Or is less of a case of safety and more of a case of inconvenience? It seems as though you feel like your online visibility is mainly through social media. Do you ever think twice about what you post as what goes online is there forever?

Misslouisepark (discuss • contribs) 09:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the comment Louise. Well on Xbox once you add someone as a friend you can choose what information is displayed to them, so if I didn't know the person I would usually keep that information hidden. After writing my discussion and reading your comment, I looked online to see if Xbox user's email address is displayed to others on Xbox and turns out it's not, although your email address is used for setting up the account. So I have corrected that in my original discussion. Your real name however is displayed and you need to go into setting if you want to block Xbox friends from seeing that information. However, random players can still send you messages to your Xbox account through text or speech using a headset, and its never usually pleasant. I know you can block individual players from sending you mail, however i'm not sure if you can stop receiving mail via Xbox altogether as it has been a while since I have played. If you can't already block mail altogether then yes that would be a good feature for younger players so as they are not subject to any abuse.

I would say that on Facebook I do feel safe as I have never been subject to any online bullying or negativity and I am careful what I post. I think Facebook is more of an inconvenience than safety for me when it comes to not wanting to be reached. However I still feel that on Facebook the positives outweigh the negatives as I use Facebook mostly for the group chat feature and to follow bands/artists and comedians. I also play in bands and find it the most efficient way to promote myself. I read the discussion on your page and I can relate to that. Therefore I feel it is very important to be careful what information you wish to share as everything that is posted is saved somewhere online. Therefore I do think carefully about what I post, although I tend not to post anything private or any strong opinions or feelings that I have. My phone number and email address is on display for Facebook friends but that's not really private information, for me it would be the same as handing out a business card. I have thought about deleting Facebook due to the amount of time I sometimes waste on it but I feel that if I did I would no longer be connected. "just when i thought i was out....they pull me back in".

I like what you said about our online activity being like a modern day version of big brother. What do you think the alternative would be? I can't see social media going away anytime soon and more and more business is being carried out online. I wouldn't say that I am pro social media. I would like to go back to a time when there was no social media and we had to communicate through different means, but as that's not the case right now I think I would just feel left out if I was to delete Facebook. Jackhand1 (discuss • contribs) 22:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I enjoyed reading your post. I was really interested in the point you made about sharing your phone number on Facebook. This is something ive never done as I would be concerned about my privacy. However, you seem to suggest that your user experience is greater and that you are able to take advantage of more of the sites features by doing so? Do you think to fully engage with a social media platform there needs to be a level of trust between the user and the platform? Thank you. Caroline WikiHacker (discuss • contribs) 11:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

#3:Information Overload
There is so much information out there which is available to us online and it can be easy to become distracted. I deal with this by learning how to search for information I want efficiently by using key words in the search bar. Although, even after doing this I am often bombarded with copious amounts of information which I have no use for. I often see a link to a page or an article when I am searching for information which I know has no value and will inevitably lead to me becoming distracted and wasting time, however I will often visit the page anyway justifying it to myself has having a break from the work I’m supposed to be doing. Even now writing this discussion I am being notified through Facebook of a friend tagging my name in a YouTube video and it’s difficult to resist the urge to watch it before finishing the exercise.

However, I still believe that having this much information is more beneficial to us than it is a distraction as we can often discover additional information which is useful to us in which we were not aware of. The vast amounts of information which is available to us will lead people to different conclusions and finding alternative points of views on specific topics.

In relation to the Wikibook Project my group and I have created a Facebook group to communicate easily which also makes it convenient if you wish to get hold of one of the group members as they will be sent a notification. We have also created a Wikibook discussion page with another group which is doing the same topic as us so as we can share ideas with one another and divide the work load. Through that Wikibook discussion page we have also arrange a “real life” meeting. Jackhand1 (discuss • contribs) 23:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Jack, I get what you mean by telling yourself you deserve a break after a short session of working, one little distraction can lead to hours of procrastination. Much like yourself, in the process of typing this comment, I have already been caught in the vicious cycle of procrastination. You tell yourself you’ll do one simple task like change a song, but before you know it you’re taking Buzzfeed quizzes. I mentioned in a previous comment that we might be so easily distracted from tasks because there is very little work to complete that is away from a screen –especially in regards to university, where the majority of the work we do is in a digital format. Therefore it’s easy to slip into the depths of the internet as we’re just a tab away from everything but the task at hand. Would you agree? Or do you think that there is a more dominant factor in our distraction?


 * I also agree with your point about information being more beneficial to us than it is a distraction. It’s often portrayed in some mainstream media outlets that people of our age absorb ourselves in superficial discourses, especially on social networks. However, this is not always the case, I think that the youth have used the vast amounts of information that is now available to us to become more politically charged and socially aware. All you have to do to see this meaningful engagement is to type hashtags like #blacklivesmatter or #Trump or anything for that matter on Twitter or Facebook, or any other social network. Of course having all this information so easily available to us can be very distracting, but what we do with this information is not always necessarily a waste of time, like you have noted information leads to discussion and debate –which is always important and valid. Also, who’s to say knowing random facts is useless? The more knowledge the better!


 * However, this being said, there are now restrictions on what information we have access to. Eli Pariser gave a great TED Talks on filter bubbles and how one search for “Egypt” by two different people on the same search engine lead to two completely different search results. So I think we have to be careful when arguing that the vast amount of information out there automatically means that people will have access to multiple discourses. Access to information does not always equal debate when algorithms are showing you what you what to see, rather than what you should see. Do you think filter bubbles prevent democracy? Or do you think they filter out the stuff you wouldn’t read anyway? CaitlinCarbury (discuss • contribs) 19:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Caitlin, thank you for the comment. I think you are right and that we end up wasting so much time as we are sitting at a screen while doing work which makes it easy to get distracted and waste time browsing the web. I also feel that I don’t feel as guilty sitting doing work with a Facebook tab open which I continuously check than I would if I was sitting in the pub, even though for some people Facebook can be just as time consuming. I’m guilty for telling myself ill study for two hours but a lot of that time will be spent browsing the web and it might feel like I’ve done the two hours work because I’m sitting in front of the screen, when in reality I haven’t.

Have you seen Simon Sinek’s talk on the millennial generation? He talks about the fact that we are so used to instant gratification through the web, such as one click buy or getting a match on tinder. Because of this our generation is in trouble of losing the ethic of working hard for a reward or being able to build meaningful relationships with people. If you haven’t seen it I highly recommend watching it. I’ll leave a link.

I just watched the video you left me on filter bubbles, it really shocked me. I knew they existed but not to the extent that was highlighted in Eli Pariser’s lecture. I do not necessarily think filter bubbles are a good thing, even if they do filter out items you wouldn't normally read as they may only show you one side of the argument, this would be particularly detrimental to your knowledge on politics which could lead you to a biased conclusion if you are only seeing one party’s argument. Jackhand1 (discuss • contribs) 13:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

#4 Wikibook Project Reflective Account
Overall, I enjoyed the wikibook project as it was something quite different where we got the chance work as part of a group and interact with other students on the course while learning a new way to share and discuss information. I very much enjoyed the feedback and discussion with the other students which took place on the wiki exercises and I feel this helped me better understand the topics in the module. I can see how this project relates to the topics on the module, as for example, the topic my group was working on was “collective intelligence” which is introduced by Pierre Lévy as meaning many heads are better than one. When I read through the other student’s discussion pages each week for the wiki exercises, I learned something new each time as everyone had an additional piece of information to add thus creating a collective intelligence. Everyone was writing on their own experiences meaning that no two discussion pages were the same. The comments and feedback which was left on my discussion page was also very helpful and I feel it helped me engage with the topics on a personal level. As the class became more savvy using wikibooks a few students began to share videos and links to additional information on the wiki exercises which helped me better understand the topic we were discussing that week.

When the second half of the wiki project first started my group and I seemed a little unsure as to how best approach it as it was unlike any exercise we had ever attempted. There was four of us in the group so we started off by splitting up all the readings available on our topic between each member hoping to cover all the main points on the topic, thus giving us a collective knowledge on the subject. The other group which was doing the same topic got in touch with us via our wiki discussion page and suggested that we should get together face to face and work out the best way to carry out the exercise. Prior to the meeting, we had created a Facebook group giving us a platform to share our ideas and suggest useful readings that we had found. We also used our wiki discussion page to share this information, however as we were all inexperienced and new to wikibooks our discussion page very quickly became messy and unorganised causing a lot of our points to get lost and unnoticed. Therefore, we often resorted to using the Facebook group to communicate as everyone in the group was well experienced at this. As our group became better adapted to wikibooks our discussion page took better form and became easier to navigate as we started using topic headers, bullet points and pinging if we wanted someone to see what we had added. Even with our improved wikibook skills, Facebook was much better for a fluid conversation between the group members. Although, the wikibook discussion page was still useful. For example, when one of our group members worked out to upload pictures after visiting a wikibook help page, they uploaded the information onto our wiki discussion page. I was then able to keep referring to this information and using it as a template for uploading pictures. I feel like our group’s face to face meeting was a big help as we could discuss exactly how we were going to carry out the exercise. We identified the key points on our topic and each member of the group chose one to focus on. This I feel is where the exercise really started to come together as we all knew exactly what we were working on and could make a start on the project and collecting information. As easy as it is to communicate online it still doesn’t compare to meeting face to face and I feel that after the group meeting I left with a much better understanding of what I was meant to be doing. After this meeting we were then able to go away and work individually on our chosen section.

I would say it took me a while to get to grips with the wiki sites, and I found my class mates to be incredibly helpful in sharing the different techniques they had found in uploading information and emphasising points, such as bullet points, headings, referencing and pictures. If I was to do this project again I would say I would be a lot more confident engaging in discussion with other wiki users outside of my classmates as I feel I am more comfortable writing for an audience and creating my own content and not just consuming information but actually adding to it. Jackhand1 (discuss • contribs) 23:04, 14 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.


 * Satisfactory. Your contribution to the book page gives a satisfactory brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a fair range of concepts associated with your subject, and an effort to deliver critical definitions. There is evidence that you draw from relevant literature and scholarship, however your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is slightly lost, perhaps due to a variable depth of understanding the subject matter or over reliance on rote learning. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a somewhat circumscribed range and depth of subject matter.

Wiki Exercise Portfolio (Understanding weighted 30%)
Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is overall (and particularly in relation to Understanding and Engagement elements), that should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band, relative to the descriptor


 * Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory entries may try to relate an idea from the module to an original example, but might not be very convincing. They may waste space on synopsis or description, rather than making a point. They may have spelling or grammatical errors and typos. They might not demonstrate more than a single quick pass at the assignment, informed only by lecture and/or cursory reading. They may suggest reading but not thinking (or indeed the reverse). The wiki markup formatting will need some work.


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

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * No evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * No engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Little or no use of discussion pages