User talk:JayeRaiyatMedia

Hello, I am a student and I am using this for a class educational project. I am exploring how people use and interact with wikibooks. JayeRaiyatMedia (discuss • contribs) 13:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: What Makes a Good Wiki?
This blog post will involve a comparison of four social media platforms. These are namely Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, and blogs (such as Wordpress). Throughout the post an attempt will be made to explore their qualitative differences between them.

Facebook is a platform that makes the sharing of ideas extremely easy, but due to this openness it is often not ideal in fostering meaningful discussion. Views can spread quickly through reposts and reach a wide audience, and almost anyone is free to comment as they see fit. It does however have a number of features that are useful for group work or online collaboration. Creating specialised groups can be a useful way to engage with certain communities, a book club, or university society for example, or a group of peers for a team based task. Using Facebook in this manner can render it a useful tool for collaboration, though the majority of public posts will be of relatively low quality in comparison to the other forms of media.

If we compare this to wikis, then the qualitative value for wikis would appear to be higher. In a wiki, information is usually referenced, where Facebook is subject and informal. A wiki dedicated to a series of books may reference chapter and page numbers, or another on a TV show series and episode number. Wikipedia features references to both sources of journalism and scholarly articles, making it of higher qualitative value. However, it is important to consider that wikis can be freely edited, though this is typically moderated, and features a discussion area where changes can be challenged, agreed with or suggested.

Twitter is a platform best suited to sharing views, or commenting on current affairs. Given the 140 character limitation, it is difficult to use for any sort of meaningful online collaboration, and features little to no moderation. Twitter falls lower than Facebook in terms of qualitative value as it lacks features such as creating specialised groups or forums.

Blogs fall somewhere in the middle. While it is true, anyone can post what they like on a blog, they tend to be focused on a certain subject area. This could be art, a genre of books or anything that takes the users fancy really. A good blog will reference facts and sources and not be based on conjecture. The comments sections on Wordpress for example are useful for keeping discussion centred on the post. As a result of this ability to focus discussion, a good blog will have higher value than social media such as Facebook and Twitter but perhaps less so than a dedicated wiki.

To conclude, social media platforms are usual in spreading information widely, though the information is typically opinion or conjecture. A greater weighting would perhaps be placed on wikis and quality blog posts as they are often referenced and the discussion is more focused, curtailed by the variety in blogs and the ability to edit wikis. JayeRaiyatMedia (discuss • contribs) 23:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wiki Exercise #1


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


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


 * This post is at the lower end of this grade band, 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, I think that further engagement with how people tend to use both kinds of platforms (rather than one vs. the other) might be useful. In addition, there is an assumption about young people using wikipedia - I would encourage you to conduct some research on wiki production and use - it is far from clear that there are these kinds of generational distinctions in operation - although there could be some valid points to be made if you are able to support an argument around this through reading and research.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are especially good. I like that you have attempted to engage 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! Finally, making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would go a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, as you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this will make a considerable difference.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

(Comment) - Definitely agree with some things you've said, but just wanted to comment on what you have said about Twitter especially. I can see where you're coming from - the word limit of course prohibits in depth posts, but I would disagree with your point that there is a lack of meaningful online collaboration. Perhaps in regards to things such as groups as you have outlined, but I know personally I have had many discussions on twitter and seen multiple ones as well. I think recently especially things such as social problems and what is going on in regards to Donald Trump's presidency and further Brexit have sparked (obviously) huge debates and Twitter is one of the main places I've seen this. I think it's really useful to have a platform where you can discuss controversial topics such as these with your peers on a less formal basis. Though it may not be as academically credited as other platforms (though of course we are often told to stay away from wiki whilst trying to gain facts also) I do believe it is very useful. I would also say that yes, Facebook is largely informal but, especially recently, there are many official news pages and news articles shared on there. Of course the comments are free to all but I find it really interesting to read these comments as you gain real life perspective. I would agree however that wikis and blog posts could perhaps be rated more highly in being more substantial, but I would argue that Twitter and Facebook shouldn't be completely written off either. Hope you understand where I'm coming from and would love to hear a reply! Liaa13 (discuss • contribs) 11:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, I had never thought of Twitter and Facebook from that perspective. As Twitter can be used to hashtag tweets and cause certain topics to trend and attract more people in to the discussion. I have to agree with the point you made about real life perspective. It widens our knowledge on not only facts but also how it affects other people and drives their views. That's a good point regarding the social problems on Twitter and Facebook, official news pages educate the younger generation and invite them to participate in debate or discussions. JayeRaiyatMedia (discuss • contribs) 23:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Data Trails
My online visibility is related to three major social networks that I actively engage with. These are namely; Snapchat, Facebook, and Twitter. On each social network how public my profile is varies due to the different privacy options they offer. This dictates how much personal information users can see and the degree to which you can limit this.

I we first look Snapchat, to add someone on Snapchat you must know their username or their phone number. These are relatively specific as their username could simply be their name or something obscure and random. However, once people have added you, they can see your Snapchat stories you have uploaded and send you Snapchat messages, pictures or videos. My personal Snapchat is slightly more private as if someone adds me I have to accept them first before they are able to view my Snapchat story or send me a message, video or picture. I have chosen my Snapchat to be slightly more private because I like to know who is viewing my Snapchat story, instead of strangers being able to view them and contact me. In terms of control, I feel like Snapchat is quite robust as you can adapt your settings to various degrees of privacy based on personal preference. It is possible to control how public or private your Snapchat is, with features allowing for stop multiple individuals from viewing your Snapchat story if you upload one or block people entirely.

Through Facebook you can set your settings to private so people are restricted from viewing your whole profile if you are not their friend. In addition, you can configure your account so that people cannot see posts that you have uploaded without being your friend, i.e. sending a friend request and it being accepted. Regarding my personal account, it is possible to view most of my posts and where I live, where I study, what I study and my date of birth are visible. Although this personal information is public, if someone who is not my friend wants to contact me they must first send me a friend request or a message request that I have the choice to accept or deny. Although my profile is fairly public I have a choice whether I would like to keep it more private or not. However, ‘from a symbolic interactionist viewpoint, the public, private binary denotes a series of mutually understood social conventions which determine the most appropriate gestures for social interaction.’ (Athique, 2013). This displays that as a student I have chosen to go more public due to a mutual understanding of social conventions. However, in a different social group, for example teachers, their mutual understanding for appropriate gestures of social interaction is more private as they tend to not want students they teach at school find them as it is deemed as inappropriate, unprofessional and generally unwanted.

My Twitter account for comparison is very public. People are free to view my bio, profile picture and all my tweets. I chose to have my Twitter so visible as it is less personal than Snapchat and Facebook. Tweets are limited to 140 characters and are focused less on my personal life and more targeted to talking about current affairs or tweeting back followers or people I am following such as celebrities. However, you can decide to have it private which stops people from viewing your tweets. It also has features to restrict people following you from retweeting your content, so all posts are tied solely to your profile and cannot go any further.

As you can see, the privacy on my social networking sites depends largely on how personal they are. However, I am able to alter their settings to limit how much content is available to the public. This is not always under your control however, as when you Google yourself your pictures can be on Google images that is linked to one of your profiles. In cases like these it can be out of your control.

Bibliography Athique, A. (2013). Digital Media and Society: An Introduction. Cambridge : Polity Press. JayeRaiyatMedia (discuss • contribs) 10:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The privacy on Snapchat is a fairly new thing however, I don't know if you remember but Snapchat used to allow you to see a list of your friends "best friends" on the platform. I believe they stopped this because it allowed people to add friends that they didn't even know and Snapchat were under pressure to strengthen their privacy settings.

Facebook is a strange one for me because I had always had my profiles set to public until I got a summer job coaching kids and decided it probably wasn't best if they were able to see everything on my profile. So before I started I changed my Facebook privacy settings to private yet many of the children were still able to find my profile, go through my profile pictures and send friend requests. The other issue with the privacy on Facebook is that you can still send a message to anybody even if you aren't friends with them, allowing online bullies to potentially emotionally hurt people online. I do know that you can block users on Facebook however there are "real life" issues with this as often online bullies (especially when kids are involved) know the victim personally and blocking them on Facebook could lead to further problems.

I would also agree that Twitter is the least private of all the platforms as tweets can be retweeted and then seen by a whole host of users that you are not friends with. I like how you say that whilst you can control the level of privacy that each of your profiles has, you still don't really have a way of controlling everything about you online. JamieKingGinge (discuss • contribs) 18:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload
In regards to online information available for the wiki exercise we have access to a number of different materials. In addition to the weekly reading assigned, we are encouraged to use the Internet to search for more information online. When researching a topic further, I typically begin with Google, where I search for a few specific ideas to narrow my options down. Once I have a established a foundation for my points of research, I can use the university library search facilities. This allows me to search key words or certain authors relevant to my topic area that further clarifies the information I am looking for. This allows me to make clear and concise points for my work, based on what I have researched.

While working on my wiki exercise for ‘Visibility and Data Trails’ I examined my own social networking sites in order to see how visible I was online. As a result it was easy to get distracted whilst looking at my settings. However, to prevent getting distracted like this when doing work, I take regular breaks so I can remain focused. I try to avoid sitting still for longer than hour, and move around during my breaks or get some fresh air. If I find myself getting too distracted, I use a chrome extension that can block designated websites. By using Citrus I can create a list of the sites I want to block, then set a timer for how long I want them to be blocked for. I find this keeps me focused and serves the dual function of not only keeping me on task but sets out how long I want to spend on tasks, giving me goals to work towards. This is useful when I have multiple deadlines as I am more time efficient and spread my workload out equally, I'm able to track how much time I dedicate to each piece of work.

When dealing with the abundance of information for our wiki project my group and I struggled with where to start as we had so much content to deal with. What made this easier was communicating through our Facebook group to decide the best way to tackle the wealth of information. We came to the decision to reread all the resources we ha been giving and write down any t information relevant to our topic and use this as a baseline to explore further in our chosen topic since as a foundation had been established. Working as part of a group has improved the workflow greatly. If one member of the group is stuck, we can communicate with each other and provide assistance. This is not only through our Facebook group chat but also through our discussion page on our wiki group. This also allows us to interact with other students in different groups, giving a wider perspective on not only the content of our work but also assistance on the layout and certain codes we would have to enter, for example to create a subheading. JayeRaiyatMedia (discuss • contribs) 23:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

comment:

Hi Jaye, I enjoyed reading your post and found it very relatable. In terms of when we are trying to research certain topics for our classes, I too would typically begin with Google to gather up information helping me understand where would be best to start etc. Although would you agree that it is quite hard to find the correct information which we are looking for? Especially due to the overload of work uploaded on a daily basis and the fact we have to make sure if the information we find is actually reliable.

You referred to our previous wiki post on ‘Visibility and Data Trails’ which I found interesting as I didn’t even think about linking this with ‘Overload of Information’. I also searched myself online for our previous post and found myself on many social media sites double checking my privacy settings and also simply researching what was visible to the world. Using your example of searching ourselves online, the fact so much information can be brought together based on us (one person) really does open our eyes and make us realise why there is so much information online about everyday activities, academic work, or common knowledge information etc.

With regards to the wikibook project and work flow, my group also found it quite hard to decide what topics we were going to cover and also where to even get started and are also using the same approach you have taken. I feel that we have the same view and experiences regarding information online, as well as many other people online today. I found your post interesting, thanks! ArianneStirling (discuss • contribs) 17:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it is hard to filter through all the information and find the most reliable work. It takes quite a lot of time getting the correct information. I find that starting with the lecture slides and taking note of important academics and authors is helpful, then searching for their work through the library or online articles, it takes time but it is worth it for your work. It is worrying about how much information on the internet you can find on yourself, it makes you think is there such thing as privacy on the internet? Even if your profiles are all set to private, when you purchase online, you later see adverts for similar items. Everything you do online is somehow linked to you. JayeRaiyatMedia (discuss • contribs) 21:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Your post was very interesting! When doing research for essays, it is very easy to get distracted by the abundance of information available. It is difficult to sort out information that could be useful to answer the question for an essay topic and not get distracted by information that only you find interesting on a personal level. However, things are made easier for us when we can only type certain keywords, it helps find more specific kind of information. It is interesting that you linked this topic with the previous one on online visibility because most of the time when I get distracted it is by social media. I get so easily distracted from my work from maybe just a text from a friend because I then start checking every social network that I am on to see if I received messages or just to see if anything new was added and because of the rapidity of those networks there is always something new to check. I find it helpful that you wrote about what you do to not get distracted as I definitely need to improve on that personally. I did not know about Citrus so thank you for mentioning it, I will look into it to help me focus more on other assignments. I do agree with you about the wikibook project. There is an abundance of information that we had to learn how to deal with rather quickly for this assignment. It is harder to focus on a certain piece of information and especially it took me a while to understand how to use the site in the first place. I do like that we can easily discuss ideas for our project and engage with it directly rather than talk about it on messages and then write it again on the website.

Clarabiswiki (discuss • contribs) 15:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi thank you for your comment. I’m glad you found my post interesting and useful. What you said about the rapidity of social media stood out to me, there is a sense of missing out if you do not constantly keep up to date with social networks. There is a need to always be online. Citrus is really useful as you can time yourself for your work, so you can schedule regular breaks which I find helps me stay focussed. I also agree with the wiki project how we can talk to one another rather than online. The labs are also useful in that sense. Although the wiki project is partly about collaboration through the wiki discussion page, I do find it easier to communicate ideas in person then transfer what was discussed online. Learning how to understand the site for our wiki project was hard, I agree. However collaboration and group work really helps with this as we can ask one another how to do certain things, or search through the wikibooks search bar. I think it’s great how we can be struggling with something in regards to the wiki project, post the problem online on the discussion or Facebook page and get a response almost instantly. JayeRaiyatMedia (discuss • contribs) 20:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Really interesting account of how you carry out university work in relation to digital media. I completely agree with what you talk about with with respects to the sheer volume of information available at our fingertips whenever we log online. The notion of information overload is a really engrossing aspect of the course in my opinion and hearing your perspective and your experience is very interesting. I have never heard of the extension Citrus that you talk about but will be investigating more about it. It is good to see that you are consciously linking the content of the module with the habits of your online data usage. I can relate with a lot of what you speak about when you are talking in relation to the group work, our group had the same problem. Its cool to hear about your interactions with the rest the rest of the group and how they are carried out, as my group too have a Facebook page for almost and admin purposes, then a discussion page for proper work for the wikibook. It would be interesting to perhaps hear more about what dictates relevant information to the book from your readings and how you sieve through the overload of information. Aidancc (discuss • contribs) 09:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi for my group work the topic I chose was ‘Citizen Journalism’. I struggled at the start with the amount of resources I had to read through. I began by simply Googling ‘citizen journalism’ which gave me the definition but also lead me to an interesting article about how it is becoming more prevalent. This laid the foundations for me, and helped me figure out what I was going to focus on. On Succeed I filtered through the list of reading sources by title and what sounded relevant to my chosen topic, for example ‘participating in online culture’, and from there I could read through the sources I had up. What is useful is with some of them you can search key words, so I would search for ‘Citizen journalism’ or ‘participation theory’, which lead me to relevant information. This helped me develop points that I can now link to the real world and use examples from current events. Although the Internet is vast, it is interesting how it can also enable us to narrow the abundance of information down, for example simply just searching for keywords in a book. JayeRaiyatMedia (discuss • contribs) 20:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi , I find really interesting that some people though of creating an extension to prevent us from getting distracted online. I did some research about this extension, I can see on their website that more than 18,000 college students and professionals had used it, it shows us how our society is increasingly working with an internet connexion and how social media is sometimes being an addiction. For me, I would say that distractions come from my environment, I can easily be distracted at home rather than at the library, my phone must be on silent mode and I need to turn off my mails and notifications from my computer. I have the feeling that I am always online because my profils on social networks are always available for anyone who want to talk to me, people can talk to me at anytime even if I am not on my smartphone or computer, I think this is a really disturbing position because when I had first created my accounts I didn’t know that I will have the feeling of serving others by responding to them at anytime. --Sarahsarah22 (discuss • contribs) 09:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi it is interesting how you talk about social media being an addiction. Despite the fact that you can turn off your mail, or put your phone on aeroplane mode, which cuts off your signal to receive texts and turns off your Internet you are still online, and your social networks are still active. There is always that temptation to check all your profiles. I definitely agree with your point of always being online, is there a way to not be online? I find that even if I did go to the extreme and deactivated all my online accounts, there are still platforms to message people via text or ‘Whatsapp’. There is a constant need to stay in touch with world through the Internet. I also noticed you mentioned me on another Wikibook, I was wondering how you made the word ‘Citrus’ into a clickable link as I find that looks more presentable? JayeRaiyatMedia (discuss • contribs) 20:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
Collaborating online proved to be extremely helpful. When undertaking the wiki exercise on our own wikibook and when reading and commenting on others it gave me a chance to read new material from my peers and learn new content that I may have missed otherwise. In terms of the group project and communicating on the discussion page or on our Facebook group chat, we were able to help each other instantly due to ‘Online Activism’. If I was online checking Facebook and keeping up to date and someone from my group messaged me about the wikibook, I was able to receive the message immediately and respond as quickly as possible. Whatever we discussed on the Facebook chat we were able to transfer onto our discussion page, so we did not lose out on marks for collaboration.

The fact that we could look at other groups wikibooks and discussion pages was useful in enabling us to reflect on our own work load and see how we could improve ourselves. For example, a couple of days before our deadline, I went to check how other groups were doing. I then went to my discussion and expressed how I felt we were falling behind. This lead everyone in my group to pick up the pace and improve our wikibook. Due to being ill and other deadlines I was not able to meet with my group and discuss the project face to face. However, thanks to online platforms facilitating communicating online I was able to discuss and collaborate with my group.

Communicating online made it easier to share links that helped us with our topics or how to work the wikibook. Knowing that my wiki page and our groups wikibook was publicly viewable motivated me to make sure my work was up to the highest standards and that all facts that were stated were obtained from reliable sources. The fact that the themes we had to explore for the module were broad was hard to deal with at the start but it meant that I did a wide range of reading to make sure I knew what I was talking about and it made me narrow the information down to what I thought was relevant for my work. Due to the themes each week being broad it meant that my peers were all able to focus their research in different directions depending on what they examined and what they determined as important. This meant that when I peer reviewed, I got a wider perspective on the topic and a different perspective that I may not have picked up on otherwise.

Although at first learning how Wikipedia works was difficult, due to the weekly exercises, every week I learnt something new on how to change the layout or add headings or how to ‘@’ other peers etc. This was also aided by the discussion pages not only on the wiki page but also on Facebook. When someone learned some thing new in regards to the wiki page they uploaded it so it benefited us all. Thanks to the weekly exercises, by the time we did our group project we were familiar with Wikipedia and were able to continually improve. JayeRaiyatMedia (discuss • contribs) 23:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed on all accounts! I think that once we realized where we were in terms of other groups, it motivated us to start putting all of our work into the WIki page instead of editing everything on our own time before adding our sections. Being able to have our different group chats definitely helped, in my opinion as it made it easier for us to communicate and figure out times that we could meet as well as talk about our project with ease. While we did have difficulties with the project every now and then, having the discussion boards to help each other and actually knowing a bit about Wikipedia before diving into the project was helpful in the long run. Americankatie (discuss • contribs) 15:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the points you made. Online activism definitely helped with the project as we all needed to communicate online in order to continue with our project. For our group to we had to make sure that any important information discussed in our Facebook chat was transferred onto our wiki book discussion page so that people could see our engagement and our flow of idea.

The fact that anyone could read motivated me as well to make my ideas better and to focus on my writing style. It is a motivational tool that helped me try harder.

The themes that we had to deal with were very broad like you said which didn't make the project any easier in my opinion. It was, however, rewarding in the end, to realise how many information could be linked to a single topic and how everyone participated in making that topic more interesting.

The weekly exercises were good training to make us feel more comfortable about using Wikibooks and the feedback from our peers were helpful as they are different than the feedbacks we are used to.

Clarabiswiki (discuss • contribs) 10:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)
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.


 * 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


 * Excellent. Among other things, these entries will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. They will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. They will address the assignment tasks in a thoughtful way. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts. They will be informed by serious reading and reflection, are likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.


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

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content suggests deficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * discernible lack of engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Lacking in reflexive and creative 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, well-supported arguments and critical thinking.

Engagement

I agree with the comments provided by the first marker: There is some lack of engagement with other users and creative use of the discussion pages.