User talk:Jackiebee

Hello, I'm Jack and this profile is for a Digital Media module as part of my degree. I am simply so excited to learn about Wiki*edia and how to use it. For being such a huge source of information for such a huge number of people I know very little about it. Perhaps I should have attended the first computer lab instead of visiting my family on holiday, but we live and learn from our mistakes. I'm sure I'll catch up soon. Ciao! Jackiebee (discuss • contribs) 09:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1
My experience of online collaboration is varied but by no means comprehensive. On Facebook, for example, I have used group pages for everything from group discussion and friendly discourse, to planning the shooting and post-production of short films. Facebook's ubiquitous nature among my peers means it is, by and large, a very effective form of communication. Its instantaneous nature means that comments, messages and posts are more conversational in nature. Its format lends itself to less serious discussion and more engagement with emotion and opinion than the Wiki community. For workflow, Facebook is fast but perhaps less efficient because of this. A casualness surrounds its use, meaning distraction and less focus on any specific tasks at hand is more common. Aside from Facebook, online communities such as Reddit and film discussion forums, of which I am part, are slightly less casual than Facebook's interface. They more resemble e-mail, in the sense that it is more disconnected from instantaneous, face-to-face contact. As a result of this, certain assumptions are made when posting, commenting, and replying. The casualness of Facebook implies a degree of friendliness and camaraderie, while in Reddit and other discussion forums people are more disconnected from each other. It should be noted that despite this, the size of the communities one experiences on such platforms is much larger and less filtered than the ones we create for ourselves on Facebook. With less direct and immediate connection to the people one is interacting with, a formality arises. While this aids clear discussion, it also means disagreement with other users is more common. However, this is not a bad thing. Differing opinions are what lead us to cement our own views or challenge them. And to do the same for others.

Engagement with Wiki*edia is similar in this respect, from what I have learned. Differing opinions are what makes Wikipedia a (generally) reliable source of information. The formality and anonymity, despite the use of usernames, means that the guidelines about assuming good faith, and therefore friendly tone, aid discussion without halting differences of opinion. A symptom of creating your own filtered community on platforms such as Facebook or Twitter means that differences in opinion are not only less likely, but also less likely to be flagged up and made overt since expectation about 'friends' on the platform come into play. The Wiki communities' discussion is better for its differences from those other social media platforms. However, its usage from the wider internet community flags up some issues. Instead of engaging with its editing features, many people simply consume information from Wiki*edia.

From my own engagement with it, I blindly accept whatever it's information pages tell me, unless I specifically know that some of the information I am reading is false. For example, after watching Steve McQueen's 2011 film Shame, I looked up its Wikipedia page to find out more about its production and critical responses to it. Some of the information in it was blatantly inaccurate. Additionally, after once searching 'Lunar eclipse' on Google, the entry under Wikipedia contained obviously inaccurate information (see both Fig 1.). This speaks to the dangers of assumed 'collective intelligence.' Because there lies an assumption that the information I am consuming is correct (due to the benefits of a neutral viewpoint and use of many authors who are not contextually influenced), my engagement with it and the act of critically thinking about whatever subject I am reading about is lessened on Wikipedia. As a result, I am much more susceptible to misinformation and to lacking critical thought in the rest of my life. The effects of this can be seen in many places, from Nazi Germany to contemporary US politics. Accepting information purely because of the source it comes from, rather than it's inherent merit, reliability and risk of influence can lead to terrible events.

One could posit the argument that providing false information on Wiki*edia is quite difficult. That because of the presence of many authors and their majority dedication to accuracy it is less likely that one will encounter false information than on a platform such as Facebook or Twitter. To an extent, this is certainly true. Through the use of the linked files here I have shown how easy it is to circumvent the rules on Wikibooks around the use of images and uploaded content. Wikibooks states: "Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera" which implies that a) the content must be my own and b) must not be a screenshot; printed text that can be linked. Both of these images do not conform to that definition, but were worked around in less than a minute. Before relishing in victory over 'the system' however, one should note that I have in no way been successful. These images can be reported as being in violation of copyright and of Wikibook's rules. This would result in their removal. In addition, for Wiki*edia to be successful it relies on honesty and conformity from its users. An author who consistently proved false information and broke the rules of the community would soon find that it is not tolerated by the vast majority of other users. The benefits, perhaps, of 'collective intelligence' lie then in its self-regulation. Jackiebee (discuss • contribs) 11:36, 8 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.


 * 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 post is at the lower end of this grade band, so there’s clearly room for improvement here. 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, even though you are clearly beginning to explore the possibilities of the markup, making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would go a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. This post is very long, and quite text heavy, so some live links and a little bit of creative formatting would help the reader, perhaps? I suspect that, as you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this will make a considerable difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are especially good. 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 have engaged in discussion 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). Keep this up!

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #1
A very thorough explanation and discussion around the advantages and disadvantages of both Facebook social media style platforms and Wiki*edia. While I enjoyed the content including the amusing examples that you provided, I felt it a bit long winded and at times that it went on a tangent. Ailsamaloney12 (discuss • contribs) 16:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ailsa, thanks for your comment! I agree with you here, I think. My post was perhaps over-long and took its time explaining my ideas. Maybe because of this I got sidetracked while writing and started having tangential thoughts that, while I was interested in them myself, would be more suited to a different time and place. In the future I'll practice editing my posts before saving them, as rambling is a consistent problem in my writing I find. Thanks! Jackiebee (discuss • contribs) 19:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Response to Wiki exercise #1
Hello Jack, I'm Stuart. I found your argument very convincing on pretty much every point you made. The point that peaked my interest the most though was within the third paragraph that you briefly touched on the validity of certain facts that appear on the wiki format, bringing in some examples of historical facts that are seen online and how despite the multiple authors validation, there still could be several instances of "alternative facts" (as they have come to be known) being published online. Bearing this in mind do you think the Wiki format is only useful for certain "concrete facts", if such a thing even exists? Following the historical argument "history is written by the victors", do you think Wiki can only be used and relied upon on cases in which there can be no cases of dispute or interpretation, like events in history, political movements, etcs? I do not suggest to know the answer the question I have just asked as the question of the validity of "historical facts" is bigger than simply the wiki format but feel your piece did well to touch on the discourse of the idea of of a collective intelligence not being overtly biased but as the same time not being entirely neutral. With this in mind what would you say is the information we can rely on wiki platforms for, what information qualifies as pure fact and what doesn't? Is there a field or topic that is sure to be undisputed fact that we can look as wiki platforms for in times of need or should be approach all facts we read with a pinch of salt being cautious of their partisan possibilities?

EDIT StuG772 (discuss • contribs) 17:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

StuG772 (discuss • contribs) 16:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Stuart! Thanks for your comment. You've raised a very interesting point. I'll preface this by clarifying that the pictures I included were Wikipedia results that I have found myself over my years browsing the site. It has occurred several times and I think that's why the point you raised is such an interesting and important discussion to have. I'll try and answer your questions in the order you asked them, for clarity, but will address the instances I answer a question out of order. I think the Wiki format is useful for far more than just "concrete facts" that, yes, I think do exist. Facts, as we know them, are simply conclusions that are formed by disproving every other possible theory. This is true in the sciences, all the way to history and the humanities. I believe your second question is much the same as the first so I will expand on what I have said here. History and knowledge of history is a development across time. A researcher starts with a theory and attempts to prove it, or disprove other theories to give his own one more weight. History can be highly disputed, and yet the only way to progress our knowledge of past events is to challenge already held beliefs about the past. Additionally, many scientific 'discoveries' are not confirmed and directly observed, but are hypotheses developed in response to separate observed facts. Ignoring the political ramifications of re-defining what a 'fact' is, and ignoring the contemporary, abhorrent rejection of expert opinion and fact that pervades political discourse, I would say that Wiki*edia should necessarily be used for information that is only hypothesised, or in doubt. An encyclopaedia should be a reflection of human knowledge at the time of publishing, and Wikipedia is so important because it is an encyclopaedia that can be edited, updated and changed as new knowledge is gained.

In response to your last couple of questions: I believe that it is not my place to say. All information on Wiki platforms should be questioned, and independently verified if one is to actually confirm it. Obviously, its user base does not do this, and this is par of the reason the edit function is so important, and I think helps aid the impartiality, lack of bias and reliability of the platform. However, if there is to be any information we can take as fact in Wiki platforms it is the instruction it gives on it's own media. Articles that provide editing help and site information can safely be assumed as accurate, as there is no other place more reliable to gain that information.

More widely, I would say that all facts we read or hear about should be taken with a pinch of salt as it were. As has been seen, however, this is a dangerous and slippery slope.

I hope this has answered your questions to an extent. The answers to these questions are charged with moral and political implications, and I think need a far larger discussion. They are questions about human knowledge, how we learn and how we respond to learning we can be wrong. They are questions of technology, science, contemporary politics. In short, questions that should not be answered or said to have been answered by me!

Thanks! Jackiebee (discuss • contribs) 20:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jack, I am Ross. I found this to be a largely insightful and interesting take on social media and Wikipedia as a platform. I particularly found the your comments on the nature in which we passively consume information on Wikipedia due to the fact that it has been sourced and the harm that it can do to impressionable crowds in this day and age. However I did feel that the sudden jump from Wikipedia's misinformation on to Nazi Germany coming into being may fall under the "slippery slope" critical thinking error, and despite your further discussion of the prevalence of "alternative facts" I found parts of this piece slightly contrived. Do you value the typicality of the information you find on Wikipedia more than the source that it cites? RossWithTheShirts (discuss • contribs) 12:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Collection Of Data
Online privacy, third-party sharing of information and Government involvement in citizens’ online presence is a topic that has gained significant media & public attention in recent years. In 2013, Edward Snowden contacted American journalist Glenn Greenwald with sensitive information that explicitly implicated the US and UK Governments in illegal and widespread information gathering on its own citizens, and of those abroad too. This was then published by The Guardian.The public debate these revelations sparked has not ended, and the Governments implicated have since increased and legalised some of the forms of information gathering they were previously illegally undertaking.

This metadata was gathered from phone records, online activity, banking records. A significant proportion was gathered from personal smartphones. The way we use smartphones and the ways in which social media and online communities share information gathered about us was close enough to home that many people began to question these things.

Personal Online Profile
Personally, I am quite visible online. My Facebook profile is completely public, as is my Instagram and Twitter. These are each linked to each other through share functions on the sites. These in turn are linked to my personal email account, which is linked to my Reddit account, various forums and discussion boards, including Wikibooks. My Student email account auto-forwards to my personal email account. These are all available in the form of apps on my smartphone, which is a rife source of information. My smartphone is linked to my online banking account, iCal, GPS of my location (which incidentally, can be remotely activated and monitored by GCHQ).

This seems like a lot, and this inter-connectivity is an active choice I have made. The ease-of-use is the primary motivator for this, along with Apple’s high-profile improvements in their security and encryption for smartphones. Additionally, my online presence is by no means highly personal, nor a reflection of my personal life. I make a joke out of it, exaggerate how others use it and view it more as a form of comedic performance than of honest expression. Because of this I feel that there is very little ‘true’ information about myself online, which is another reason I allow such explicit and broad information about myself to be collected. Naturally, this is not the case. My online presence is a reflection of how I think, even if it’s not a reflection of what I’m thinking. Metadata from content I post provides more information than I perhaps think about, and the interconnectivity gives context to much of what, to other users, would seem disparate and unconnected.

However at the crux of this is a niggling feeling that I actually have very little insight into any of this. Apple have increased their security, but I do not understand how and what effect this would have. Facebook have notoriously inaccessible privacy settings that are unclear, and give very little information to users about what data they collect and share. Targeted advertising is something I experience every day and yet am convinced I am unaffected by. Similarly, I am aware that my social media feeds have enough information about me to accurately guess how I voted and what my political affiliations are. Their business structure encourages them to alter my feeds to show me content that is in line with my thinking and opinions. In essence, like-minded people sharing like-minded posts were what I primarily saw, especially in the run-up to recent referendums and elections. This is true of all users of social media, especially Facebook and Twitter that is used widely and effectively by politicians and political activists.

Online/Real-Life Divide
My Wikibooks project group elected to write about the Online/Real-Life Divide and so this is the chapter I will relate this post to.

Naturally, the divide between my online presence (and the data gathered by this presence) and the real world is blurred to the point of being nearly non-existent. The inherent differences exist, and will always exist but otherwise online presences inevitably spill over into the real world.

The most blatant example of this is the real-world implications of having so much information about myself freely available. Friends and followers can learn where I was, am, will be. Additionally, since my online presence is used to find work experience and job prospects, and as an organizational tool for real-world projects the line between them starts to blur. This, in part, is linked to the spreading use of media. There are so many different platforms and modes of communication available that they slip into real life. What starts as messaging on Facebook, could quickly become an email, then a text, a phonecall, a face-to-face meeting. Each of these is chosen for their ease-of-use and appropriateness to the situation.

However, in the sense of my online presence being a direct reflection or having unintended direct influence on my real life I believe, at least in my own case, that this is minimal. The performative aspect of social media necessitates a distance and lack of emotional investment in it. Jackiebee (discuss • contribs) 11:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Response to Wiki Ex#2 - Ailsa
Hello Jack. I really enjoyed reading this piece. It explores a lot of points but I feel that there is a lot more depth on each topic that could have been discussed. However I think touching on the different topics is more effective as you link them all together throughout. I also agree with many of the points you make for example the limited knowledge we have on exactly how much information is gathered on us. I too have a completely open and unprotected social media sites, with Facebook I often get requests from people that have no mutual friends and it is only in these moments that I regret having a completely public profile. Aside from that it has never bothered me. Although like you I share my location and what I am doing very often on Facebook, which is in turn sharing my every move almost with the internet which would make it easy for someone to track.

You're point about Online/Real Life is a very interesting and true point. I feel that very few people post the unadapted truth on Facebook. People often only show their best sides, this is particularly true with YouTube vloggers and it has been pointed out in many occasions and a lot of them have tried to solve the issue by talking about their personal issues, showing their vulnerable side. Showing that they are just human and attempting to give the audience access to their entire personality, but this is still not Real. While they might be "without make up", have "bed hair" or something else that shows a more intimate relationship between the viewer and the vlogger, they are still producing something. They are still actively performing to a camera, then taking that footage and putting it into an editing programme and creating something that isn't the whole picture. They will have edited the video, taken out bits they didn't like and perhaps added colour corrections and such.

I personally keep myself out of arguments and political discussions on Facebook as I feel that they are much worse if you get involved. I do however, discuss said arguments with my friends. Usually in person. I find the practice of gossiping online, in messenger a very daunting and scary thing. As in High School I often would talk to my friends on messenger and share secrets and thoughts with them in private, but out with my knowledge they would then share this information with the rest of my friend group and laugh and make jokes about it. I would then go in to school the next day and have these messages taunted and made fun of in front of me. So my high school experience of gossiping and sharing has made me talk a lot less about secret things online. I would much rather have a face to face interaction with someone and that way I can gage their reaction as well as not having any hard evidence that they can share to the world.

Ailsamaloney12 (discuss • contribs) 11:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3
How do you deal with the fact that there is so much information out there and that it is easy to be distracted? Why have you come to deal with it in this way? What are the contributing factors for the decisions you make in dealing with this abundance of information? How has your workflow coped with the demands of your contribution to the Wikibook Project, and what are you and colleagues doing to improve this workflow?

Growing up in the Digital Age I have come to accept that I will never know everything. There is too much information daily to keep up with it all and without some sort of filter I do not believe I would learn anything at all. Due to news websites being overseen by numerous editors, I do not need to filter that information. Nor do I need to filter my Facebook feed (unless it is through removing or adding new users to connect with) as this is automated based on the data there is about me online. Because of this, I have constant access to it and often become distracted by it. In order to deal with this (aside from basic politeness when in company) I use music. It often aids me in keeping focused when I need to by providing a strong enough level of constant external stimulation that I do not have the urge for more, but a low enough level that I am able to organize and prioritise my thoughts and actions based on any tasks that need completed. In day to day life there is a constant stream of information that I have come to terms with not always being able to access. Another contributing factor in my decisions on dealing with the abundance of information come from an ideological standpoint. It is a miracle of the digital age that so much information is available, and part of that miracle is our ability to choose what kind of information we want to seek out. I seek out information in subjects I'm passionate about, in subjects I believe will help me in life, in becoming the person I want to be. I seek out information on subjects I believe are important to the human race and to the planet, and information on how that information can be used. For it is not the consumption of information but how we use what we have consumed it that has the greatest impact.

The Wikibook Project takes up no more time than any other group assignment in theoretical terms. It is the same end-result workload we are expected to do for all group and individual work. The only difference being that our progress and how we approach the Project are constantly monitored which is ironic considering the subject matter of my previous Wiki Exercise. Because of the monitoring the processes and how we work has had to change from the norm, for most students. This is where I have felt the biggest pressure. The requirement to produce work on the Wikibook at consistent intervals is not a natural habit of mine and is therefore being challenged. Additionally, the interface of the discussion page on a Wikibook is entirely useless for such large scale discussion and it was for this reason I suggested creating new headers and subtopic's on the discussion page to keep it ordered. Additionally I believe that the sheer volume of posts on the discussion page for the Wikibook is too much, especially when not all of it needs to be said and that they mainly come from a select few users. I would not be surprised if this was the case throughout the wikibook project, and not just the chapter I am involved in. This problem is directly linked to the merit and reward system put in place for student 'engagement' which is too loosely defined on the module. Because of a vague and overbearing encouragement to create contributions on discussion pages, I believe some users simply contribute as a knee-jerk reaction to it, rather than out of pressing need. This would be fixed by clearer guidance on what a worthwhile contribution on Wikibook discussion pages is. Jackiebee (discuss • contribs) 15:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Response to exercise #3
Hi Jack, I found your argument very compelling on the subject. You mentioned that you add and remove users from your Facebook feed, now in making this decision, do you find it is motivated by the desire for trustworthy information and having a newsfeed you can trust or for you are there contributing factors of the kind of user you associate with on platfroms like this, I would love to hear how you relate to or avoid certain user types on social medias. You also mentioned that you seek out information that you feel like will help you, the planet, etc. Do you find personally that you have a filter on this kind of information and that as a society we only expose ourselves now to information and opinions that correlate to and enforce our already formed values. With the vast number of online publications, it seems to easy now in this digital age to find someone somewhere who has the same agenda, ideology and/or biases as you. Do you feel like this is a good thing or can it be seen as a dangerous way to be moving forward.

I wish I could find some probing questions to ask you on your point specific to the Wiki project but you have quite eloquently summarised my thoughts on the unconventionality and sheer challenge of picking up a format like this for uni students used to bursts of subject specific workloads. I would just like to tail on and repeat how a format that requires constant communication with all participants of a chapter is simply not practical for a university course. As a lot of students working on this module study film or journalism, we are told very early on in our pursuit of careers in said field that a degree can only go so far to secure a job, it is extra curriculars that make you employable, so a great deal of time goes on involving ourselves in things that will make our CVs nice and shiny. This means that some days we will not be able to spare the half an hour to an hour required every day to participate in discussions on chapter pages, unlike in other subject how you can set aside whole days to essay writing or presentation prep, I relate this project to something like Farmville at it requires constant attention or you begin to fail at the game, if you can't make it to look on Wiki just one day and aren't online for 48 checking the discussion page, catching up with pointless chat becomes a talk in itself because everyone wants to be seen as participating so writes sentence upon sentence stating the obvious, much like I have done right here. I could go on endlessly about my frustration at this format and unrealistic demand being made from the module but alas I feel, like our predecessors who experience to this module last year and the year before, I am shouting into the void of a course set on its unconventional assessment format.

Response To Exercise 3
Hello Jack. I understand fully what you are saying about the nature of Facebook newsfeeds and the way in which the constant flow of information can be hard to filter. With regards to your technique of ;listening to music whilst studying in order to concentrate I find the idea rather contentious. Although I am aware that many find this a reasonable solution I personally find that music itself is rather distracting. I instead opt for setting myself targets for how long I can go whilst logged out of all social media outlets before I return to them with my work finished. There are in fact studies that show that the use of these outlets has a genuine calming effect ion the human body, pumping dopamine into the system. In this way the internet is actually physically addictive although admittedly not nearly to the extent of things such as caffeine. However studies have also shown that the digital media generation is more capable of multitasking due to the early exposure to social media. What do you make of this and do you feel that you use your facebook timeline as an information source and subsequent calming mechanism? RossWithTheShirts (discuss • contribs) 01:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4
The wiki platform is one specifically designed for collaborating with users long-distance, when face-to-face contact isn't possible, nor as instantaneous or productive. With it's layout, Wiki*edia and specifically Wikibooks promotes evaluation of content, reflection and responses all in the same place. Discussion tabs and talk pages are useful for interacting with other users and creating content that is suitable, concise and professional enough to be posted publicly on the book being written. Additionally, the Wiki*edia workups that can be used to separate content, and designate specific areas for discussion and conversation are very useful for making ones points clear and understandable, all the while increasing the usefulness of the content being discussed.

However, there are many notable problems with using Wikibooks, especially when the group using it is within such a close geographical location to each other. While the discussion pages are useful for discussing content, the presentation of the page on the Wikibooks project I was working on poor, nearly useless. A huge volume of text and comments that contributed little to the content that was required to be developed. In terms of aiding organization and productivity levels it was not useful in any respect. Social media is more useful in this regard. I am keenly aware however, that this is probably because none of the users in my group (and I include myself in this) actually knew how a discussion board is usually used. I presume that there are swathes of workups that we did not engage with, that would have made it much easier to read and interact with the discussion board. Our tutorials and lessons on the use of Wiki*edia did not extend to cover things like this, and we were in no way prepared to use it. We had no concrete idea of which workups and formatting techniques could be used on a discussion page. Indeed, neither did we know if there were any limits on where and what workups could be used in the various possible locations on Wiki*edia

To learn the etiquette and techniques of the platform would have taken several months of intense and concerted effort on the part of each participant, which could have been helped by additional module direction and teaching.

Additionally, because all group member were so close to each other, the probability of face-to-face meetings was high. Face-to-face meetings, while effective, meant that a lot of our discussion took place out-with the Wikibooks platform. Our engagement with the platform, then, was reduced because of this. Our interaction with the platform was lessened because of the structure of the module.

Jackiebee (discuss • contribs) 14:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Response to Wiki Exercise #4
Hey Jackiebee, I found myself agreeing with a great deal of your points here, especially the struggles with the geographical closeness of all Wiki participants and how a lot of us attend the same classes outwith this module so it would be illogical to not discuss progress we have made and talk about topics - I feel like this prompted "synthetic engagement" to up our grades, with us just taking in-person conversations and paraphrasing them onto the discussion pages. Would you say that this platform would work better if the module paired with another from a different university, so there isn't this aspect of other easy communication channels so the Wiki platform is the only way communication about content can happen.

Additionally I think your point about the lack of familiarity and proficiency with the platform is true but would like you to expand, would you like to see the computer labs that took place for a short time during the module either last longer each day (3 hour sessions perhaps) or run throughout the whole module (from week one to the wiki deadline week). Do you think more time playing around and familiarising ourselves with the features of discussion pages, the Books themselves, etc. would have produced more streamlined and productive content and discussion.

Thank you and look forward to hearing your replies

StuG772 (discuss • contribs) 12:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work


The introduction section is incredibly well-written, summarising many key points in relation to the subject matter. A concerted effort is made to communicate sophisticated ideas in a concise, summative way, before proceeding onto the main sections of discussion. The overall structure that follows is well thought out, and evidences deliberation, delegation and timely organisation. Coverage of many of the salient issues surrounding online identity are included, as well as some quite well-chosen examples and cases.

The actual content itself, in the discursive sections, is a little more patchy than what we expect after that Introduction, with some parts that are more superficial and descriptive, yet others that are clearly very well researched, developed, and thought through. The overall effect of this is fine, because as a whole, there is a clear aesthetic that you are writing a hybrid version of a collaborative essay, and an encyclopaedic entry.

There are some instances of typo errors, and a few formatting decisions that could have been better thought through. In addition, the repetition and ill-organisation in one or two subsections (especially the Tinder and Online Dating Websites section, where there is a lot of description, and not much application of theoretical material from the module – references to journalistic pieces on anonymity for example, where reference to good peer-reviewed sources would have given just as good information with obvious added value and opportunity. Anonymity appears in a couple of sections barely sentenced apart, and yet there doesn’t seem to be much joined-up thinking here, nor applying the concept to the section’s subject matter (Tinder and Online dating). Likewise, discussions of various applications repeat (e.g. Snapchat has a few sections specifically devoted to it. Some interwiki links joining up the various sections would have made more of the platform’s functionality.

The final main section, on AI is particularly interesting – it is fairly well structured, well researched, and draws from a wealth of different kinds of sources and materials – ranging from peer-reviewed sources, through journalism and popular cultural materials, to speculative and science fiction. This helps to close off the chapter in a way that establishes a sense of authority as well as being well-written, and therefore is an interesting read, on its own merits. Again, an interwiki link to join the section on Black Mirror with the previous section on the same topic would have been useful.

Referencing – good formatting, good range of sources and materials.


 * 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%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content suggests minimally sufficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Acceptable engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Limited reflexivity and creativity, and a somewhat insecure management of discussion pages