User talk:JamieKingGinge

Hello this is my Wikibooks discussion page. I am making this page for a media module in university. It is an educational class project and this space will be used to register my comments and thoughts on how and why people use Wikibooks. JamieKingGinge (discuss • contribs) 13:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: What makes a Good Wiki?
My social media experience is limited to the popular platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. When comparing these Social Media platforms to Wikipedia it's clear to see there are many differences. Firstly, the interfaces on Facebook and Twitter are very user friendly, being simple and easy to use meaning that people who are not normally confident with using technology are actually comfortable when using these platforms. Wikipedia has complicated user interface that would definitely scare off users that are less experienced or confident with technology.

The second big difference between the more popular platforms and Wikipedia is the language used on the posts. As Facebook and Twitter allow users to express their personal opinions and thoughts, slang or offensive language is a regular occurrence however on Wikipedia the language is much more formal. This could be down to the fact that people are often much more formal when dealing with facts compared to opinions.

The final difference is that anyone can post anything on Facebook or Twitter therefore there is no credibility to any facts posted on these pages. Nobody but the poster can edit the posts, other users can only react to the posts by commenting on it or 'liking' it. On Wikipedia every edit has to be peer assessed and evaluated meaning most of the information has a certain aspect of credibility. JamieKingGinge (discuss • contribs) 11:51, 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.


 * 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 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, I would try to extend the discussion, perhaps referring explicitly to reading and research (yes, you can use a small quotation if it helps to support your points). I found the assertion that anyone can post on social media and therefore there is a reliability issue - very, very interesting (largely because most students tend to attribute reliability issues to the wiki, but rarely think about this in relation to social media!!)


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, 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).

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 10:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

(comment). I agree with what you say about the interfaces being widely different, and more inviting with Facebook and Twitter. Another way to look at this is that because it is so user friendly users may feel more comfortable with expressing their views online and interacting with one another. What you said about the different language used also ties in with the comfortability. It emphasises that on Facebook and Twitter discussions can be highly subjective compared to Wikipedia where it is more formal. However, information on Wikipedia is not rated as reliable, and Facebook and Twitter have pages that are dedicated to official news where people can find factual videos, pictures or articles. Another thing you can look at is that on Facebook you can make Facebook groups which enables debates and discussions on specific subjects. With Twitter you can hashtag tweets that can set subjects trending which may entice more users to engage with it. In contrast, with Wikipedia, you are actively looking for the information whereas with Twitter and Facebook you may stumble across new information therefore it may make it more exciting and interest you more. The quality in these platforms prove to be high as they all can contain reliable information. However, each has their flaws. Where Facebook and Twitter may have more subjective views, it sparks discussions and enables a wider audience to get involved. Wikipedia, although factual it is not rated as an academic source and the only time for interaction is if the text is edited and then discussed until they come to a conclusion if it is suitable or not. JayeRaiyatMedia (discuss • contribs) 23:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

(coment) I agree in how the language is key element to diferenciate social platforms such as Facebook or Twitter from wikipedia and how this might give a proffesional point of view to wikipedia. However, its necessary to remember that almost all the newspapers, news chanels etc, are now in social media platforms. Because of it can not be say anymore that wikipedia is more profesional than other platforms or than is not credibility in other platforms. AngelSpaniard (discuss • contribs) 11:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Data Trails.
Online visibility has never been an issue that I have spent much time thinking about however with profiles on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat, a lot of my private information is out in the public domain. My profiles are all set so that they can be viewed only by friends which means I have accepted every person that sees my personal information. According to Watts and Schmargad (2016) “Facebook users are more concerned about privacy from their connections than from Facebook itself or affiliated businesses.” (Para. 6) This is an important point because generally people just post something and assume only their friends or connections are going to see it and they forget that everything online can be seen and kept forever. A good example of this is when a “celebrity” posts something online before they get famous and then have to delete the post/tweet because it doesn’t conform to the persona they’re now trying to portray.

The phrase online visibility to me also means how you portray yourself online or on social media. I rarely ever post anything on Facebook or Twitter anymore, preferring to share interesting or funny tweets/posts that I come across. I do this because I don’t feel the need to post my personal opinions online. Brandtzæg, Lüders, and Skjetne (2010) argue that Facebook users with many friends feel more pressure to conform when posting information on the platform. (p.2) I would definitely agree with this as personally there is stuff I would share with my close friends that I would never share with some of my “friends” on Facebook.

Leaving a data trail is an interesting notion to me as again I’ve never been that interested or worried with the information I was leaving behind online. To look into the idea that I had a digital footprint I (obviously) Googled my name but due to the fact that the name Jamie is unisex and there is a famous actress by the same name, I was unable to find anything related to me. Even when you search for Jamie King on Facebook, I can only be found on the 4th page. However, I found that when you Google “Jamie King Cricket”, the very first entry on google is about me and my picture is on the first page in the images. From this I was able to go to my Cricket Clubs homepage and eventually was able to find out my birthday, age and place of birth. I found it incredible that I was able to discover so much by only having my name as a starter point. It certainly has made me think more about my online visibility and my digital footprint.

Bibliography

Brandtzæg, P. B., Lüders, M., & Skjetne, J. H. (2010). Too many Facebook “Friends”? Content sharing and sociability versus the need for privacy in social network sites. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26(11-12), 1006–1030. doi:10.1080/10447318.2010.516719 Shmargad, Y., & Watts, J. K. M. (2016). When online visibility deters social interaction: The case of digital gifts. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 36, 1–14. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2726412 JamieKingGinge (discuss • contribs) 11:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments

I was interested to hear what you said about your investigations into your own online presence. Schools are increasingly working with the Police to try to encourage young people to secure their online communications and data trails as a safeguarding initiative. I was in a seminar where a police computer specialist took a random person's name from the audience and in the space of four minutes had their entire personal details (as you found yours) including their address, place of work and where they went every Friday night. It was simultaneously impressive and worrying. Facebook terms and conditions clearly mention that once you have uploaded any data, it is no longer your own to secure as you would like. . I am, as a professional, keen to limit the type of posts which are available on Facebook (which is my only social media account) as I would not wish my professional persona to be compromised. Goffman, in Athique, suggests that there is a clear difference (although interacting) between public and private persona and I tend to focus on the front stage 'Me' in an effort to maintain my professional standing should anyone come across my virtual life. To this end, I am also careful to control who sees my data by utilising the appropriate platform security settings, as you also seem to be doing. Is this enough do you think? Vickthestick (discuss • contribs) 08:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The idea that so much of my personal information could be just a few clicks away for anyone in the world is a scary thought I must agree. I think it's great that schools are starting to realize the importance of online security as I don't remember ever being a part of a internet safety seminar like you have described. I think internet safety is particularly important in schools as online bullying is rife in every school and could maybe be dealt with better by kids who have received an internet security seminar.

To answer your question about whether the security settings on social media platforms is enough, I would have to say no based on personal experience. I was quite blasé with my online security throughout school with all of my profiles being open to the public however coming out of school I had a summer job as a sports coach in a kid's camp. Obviously the last thing I wanted was for the children I was coaching to be able to access any of my online profiles, so I changed all my privacy settings so theoretically only my friends could see my posts and find me on Facebook. Having done all this, I still received dozens of friend requests from the children. Even though I didn't accept any of them, they were still able to see past profile pictures as that's how Facebook operates. To me, this just shows that the online security of most of these social media platforms is inadequate. JamieKingGinge (discuss • contribs) 18:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload
In 1613 Barnaby Rich said “one of the diseases of this age is the multiplicity of books; they doth so overcharge the world that it is not able to digest the abundance of idle matter that is every day hatched and brought forth into the world." (Abbot, 1999, p.15) This quote was originally referring to a time where books were beginning to be produced on mass, taking away the elite feel that book owners previously had. Although this quote is about a world where books were the only source of information, it is extremely relevant now as there is more information than ever available and the ability to access it in only a couple of clicks. Dealing with so much information can be a challenge, especially when researching for essays. To combat the incredible amount of information online, I make use of the Stirgate, SPORTdiscus and Nexus search engines that are available through the university resources section on the portal. I use these because it helps to limit the amount of information my search shows and it also filters the results based on specific parameters I can set. I find this extremely useful as I spent 1st year of university trawling through Google blissfully unaware of the services that the university provides.

The main problem with having so much information so easily accessible is that there is a big question mark over the legitimacy. Anyone has the ability to post online expressing any views or opinions that they believe which is their right, however it does lead to problems when trying to discover facts. It is so easy to regurgitate misinformation (Donald Trump I'm looking at you) as there will be something online to back up every opinion, no matter whether it is correct or incorrect. To counter this problem, I only use books and journal articles that have been peer assessed in my work. This does make for a long process however it normally means that everything I include in my work is factually correct. The Wiki project has taken up more of my time than I expected when I first learnt about the project. With an essay and a 10 minute presentation due around the same time as the final Wikibooks project, the work has put a strain on my workflow, however I like the way that the project allows interaction with others and find that it stimulates me and helps me to do more work. As a group, we are starting to organise the workflow better meaning that everyone can get on with their piece of work which will eventually help to contribute to the Wikibooks project.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ABBOT, R., 1999. The World as Information: Overload and Personal Design. 1 edn. Exeter: Intellect Books.

JamieKingGinge (discuss • contribs) 16:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
Over the past month I have been part of a class working on the Wikibooks projects. I have found this a very interesting project as the subject matter was engaging and kept me engrossed in the subject. However I did struggle to come to terms with the use of wikibooks and then with organising our group to make sure our chapter was finished on time.

Originally I thought that the use of Wikibooks would help to keep me interested in the project and would be a nice change to the standard method of essay writing. However I found the platform extremely complicated to use and struggled to get to grips with it during the first computer lab. Thankfully, the first wiki exercise was actually very useful as I felt it gave me time to get used to the platform without the pressure of it being graded. This allowed me to test out different features and allowed me to visit the community rooms and read up on how to create references and link websites to my work. The wiki exercises were done individually however I had to comment on two or more of my fellow students wiki exercises and have a about discussion about their work. This was important as communicating with colleagues and giving them feedback was part of the module themes. The Wiki exercises also allowed students to discuss and debate work which was another of the module themes, showing why the use of Wikibooks was justified.

Alongside the wiki exercises, we had to choose groups made up from people in our computer labs which was actually a hard process as I didn’t know anyone in my class. However once the groups were chosen, we quickly set up a Facebook group to discuss our upcoming work. The group immediately worked well together with every member communicating and contributing equally. We discussed what chapter subject to pick and once chosen, decided which sub-topic each person would be doing. The group was working well together, however it wasn’t until the final computer lab that we all met up and ironed out all the remaining issues. We met up in person at the final computer lab and used this face to face contact time to discuss our problems and how we can overcome them.

In relation to the actual work itself, we did very well to avoid the problems of the hive mind as there were at least 10 people working on our chapter and everyone was contributing different stuff. To avoid the hive mind becoming an issue we used the discussion page on our chapter to communicate as an entire group. Everyone made it clear on the discussion page what sub-topic they were in charge of. The discussion page was actually extremely useful.

One of the hardest problems I found with the final wikibooks project was that everyone has different workloads and schedules therefore each individual member of the team was working to their own deadline. This had an effect on the final outcome as team members were altering the chapter right up until the last second.

Overall I enjoyed the project and the use of wikibooks as it was something new that I haven’t experienced before. Participating in group work through the medium of wikibooks was at first difficult but, by the end of the project, everyone in the group had grown used to the platform and was confident of discussing as a group on wikibooks.

Wiki Exercise #4 Comments
I agree with a lot of what you said of your experience with this project. I also thought that the exercises allowed me to practice with the site before actually starting the project. Ulitmately, I found using wikibooks to be a little more complicated than it was beneficial. I am glad that I learned something new, but I was wondering if you too experienced this? I know that you said you overall enjoyed it, but did you find it to be more complicated than it was useful in learning course content? Sam ediko (discuss • contribs) 00:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work


The Introduction to this chapter is rather odd – it includes user signatures which do not belong on the book page. A couple of sentences as contribs from different users, with very different styles, and this creates a jarring, almost Brechtian feel to the start of the chapter – I can’t imagine that this is deliberate, but I may be incorrect about this. There is little evidence to suggest that this effect serves a critical function for the remainder of the chapter.

Very unusual way of citing sources in-text. However, there is something really useful about including live links to actual reading – it engages the reader in proper hypertext reading, and arguably makes a lot of the platform, its functionality, and how it can be used as a knowledge-building peer-assisted learning platform. This seems deliberate, and works!

Some problems with links that appear red (i.e. not live) and one or two typos dotted throughout.

The section “Evidence and the Unreliability of Online Sources” is a little text-heavy. It’s a fairly heavy-going section to read. Use of wiki commons images to illustrate the argument would help to not only break up the text, but to make more of the platform’s functionality. The following section on “Evidence Available Online and in Social Media” is problematic – there are a few assertions that do not make anything of available conceptual frameworks to build an argument, and entire paragraphs drawing from a source (Mayfield) that go to a dead link. Additionally, whole chucks of text seem superfluous to the overall drive of the chapter, or seem anecdotal or conversational, rather than forming a critically-engaged argument. Finally, in this section, there seems to be an overreliance on a superficial pros vs. cons presentation – this is rarely if ever a good idea because such structures fail to engage the very tensions at the heart of the conceptual framework (in this case – notions of security, and age appropriate context).

Some very useful sections on photojournalism and citizen journalism. There is some repetition of work found in other chapters – a more deliberative, joined-up approach would have enabled you to add interwiki links to a number of relevant places in the wikibook, thereby considerably improving the book overall (e.g. the subsection on “theories” mentions Habermas – where critical theory, the Frankfurt School, and aspects of public sphere are discussed at length in other parts of the book).

The glossary is rather short! The reference list is worryingly so. Some very useful reading and research in evidence, but at this level, and with this number of students working on the project over a period of 3+ weeks, one would expect more.


 * Very Poor. Your contribution to the book page gives a deficient brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a qualified familiarity with concepts associated with your subject, and the grasp of conceptual, factual and analytical issues tends to be limited and insecure. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes lack a secure basis.

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%)

 * 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

2nd Marker Comments

Content

There are many ways how this piece could have been improved as outlined in the comments by the first marker. The introduction is rather odd and the way how sources are cited is very unusual. I agree with the suggested mark.

Understanding

There is excellent evidence of critical engagement with material, independent reading and critical thinking.

Engagement

I agree with the comments of the first marker: There is no engagement with and learning from others and rarely use of the discussion pages.