User talk:Jowettgreen

This is the user talk page for Jowettgreen (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1
Have you heard of Hatnote?

A project compiled together using the technology of D3 and Howler Js. This simple concept is based on Listen to Bitcon by Laumeister. Yet, what is it? Hatnote is a site which enables you to listen to the sounds of Wikipedia itself. This unique, completely sporadic, forever changing sound allows you to sit back and relax, reflect and simply escape from reality. Different sounds resemble different conditions. Bells represent additions whereas string plucks indicate subtractions. Changes in pitch resemble the size of an edit, the larger the edit the deeper the note. The colour of circles also represent different conditions, green resembles unregistered contributions whilst purple circles indicates edits performed by automated machines. A string swell resembles once a new member joins. Just imagine what it would have sounded like when the whole class registered to Wikipedia a continuous string quartet. This is completely interactive as well, enabling you to click and interact with real time changes.

The music itself is very relaxing and helps with de stressing. The visual is also an element to loose yourself in. I think its a website to defiantly check out, especially when the work load is getting too much, deadlines are due and you need some chill time.

Jowettgreen (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

AJ This is really cool. It is so therapeutic, definitely helps to chill out. Is there a reason why some circles are bigger than others? It is really interesting to see how many people are making changes to Wikipedia all the time. Eilidh no.1 (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Bigger circles also depends on the amount of change that has been made, so for this small entry I can't imagine it being very big. Bu yes, very therapeutic indeed, I can't help but imagine what it would have sounded like when the whole class signed up to wiki, the orchestral music would have just been bliss. Jowettgreen (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow! That is an incredible and very clever piece of programming! I found it very neat to listen to as well- very relaxing and yet engaging in that it is never the same. It is a website to keep in your back pocket for sure. It would be interesting to see when it is most busy or where the majority of edits come from. Stafoya (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
You've identified an interesting project, but your discussion is hard to follow as you do not explain what certain things are (D3.js/Howler.js) and you could have embedded links to the website and other parts so readers could follow up. Your post would also benefit from further wiki markup for sections to separate different posts more clearly. Have a look at colleague's talk pages for some ideas on how to do this. You have also failed to follow the complete brief, as you have not commented on any classmate's reviews. Please make sure to follow the instructions for each exercise.

A post of this standard roughly corresponds to the following grade 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. Sprowberry (discuss • contribs) 09:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise Number Two
In terms of modern day I think it is quite scary to think how much information is accessible out there on yourself. Asking a random individual who has no connection to myself or close family friends or relatives, within five minutes they were able to present to me where I was from, a picture of me and where I went to school. This is far too much information for my liking. I have purposely gone out my way to make sure there is limited information accessible about me, even on Facebook where it is not possible for certain people to ‘add’ me as a friend. I distinctively only use two online platforms, Facebook and Instagram. My Instagram account is private, meaning that only people who have requested to follow me are able to see what I post, comment and ‘like.’ I have decided to apply this feature as I treat Instagram as a personal online photo album. Often I post photos of special moments in term which I reflect on regularly and share these moments with people I believe would share the same affection for these photos as I do. Unless you are following my account there is no information, photos or videos which you will see. However, my Facebook account is very different. There are still certain levels of privacy. For example you are not able to search my name in the search engine, well you can, but my account will not appear. Also, friends of friends are able to like my posts but not comment on them. I have done this purposely to help promote my fundraising which I am completing in aid for Asthma UK whom I’m running the London Marathon on behalf of in April 2016. Despite this however, I post next to no personal information on Facebook as well as personal posts, rants, photos or any other ‘stereotypical’ attribute which individuals may associate with Facebook. I do this as I feel Facebook is a lot more public and despite certain privacy settings which could be implemented I feel there are too many loop holes in the system which individuals can go through and follow if they were that desperate to find out information about you. In regards to how much information about me is accessible I have made a conscious effort to not disclose any direct personal information about myself ie, address and contact details. I am in full control of what information is disclosed about me and if another individual posts it then I will contact said individual or report the matter. This way information and data which I do not want publishing can be prevented. Jowettgreen (discuss • contribs) 15:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise Number Three
Information Abundance How do you deal with the fact that there is a lot of 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? There are multiple platforms individuals can use in order to access information. Especially in today’s modern day and age if we consider media and how interactive it has become. Essentially use could use search engines, online libraries, journals, books, videos, directories and much more in order to navigate around the labyrinth of information which is accessible to us. However, when researching and surfing the World Wide Web it is important to consider different attributes. Where was the information sourced? When was it produce? Is there any statistical evidence to help support the argument and information presented? These are all elements that need to be considered before using a piece of information which an individual has presented before referencing it for your own piece of work. For example, if I was to make a report on the ratio of women working within retail compared to men it would not be suitable to use statistics that were generated in 2005, 11 years previous to when the report would be published. Surely a lightbulb would go off indicating that this would not be a suitable idea and the results would have since changed in those 11 years which have passed, where retail has become such a big part of modern society. Therefore it is important to check the validity of the information, so you can produce an efficient, reliable, up to date report, in this example. It is also important to consider is the information really relevant to you and your project? A project can be huge and divided into sub divisions therefore it is not relevant to put some information into one chapter, which produces a sweeping a statement when it is going to be explicitly addressed in another. You want your information to be succinct and to the point, unambiguous. There will forever be an abundance of information which you have access to. However, is turning to technology always appropriate? There are many sources such as newspapers, journals, books and even individuals themselves which can be a lot more factual and precise than anything we read on the internet, despite its true source. Jowettgreen (discuss • contribs) 15:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise Number Four
The wiki books project was made out of a series of chapters in which you were assigned one. A number of other students were also assigned the same chapter and as a group you were to work together to fill said chapter with as much detail and information as possible within the time frame given. There was a page allocated for all the information to be displayed conjoined with a discussion page which allowed you to talk to other group members about the project and come up with ideas and how to address it. Although I have had a lot of experience with computers and I have taken some computing modules Wikipedia was something that was new to me. It was interesting to have a collaborative working group project even though we did not actually meet face to face. It was also an ideal platform to work on with the amount of people that were in our group. Wikipedia is also beneficial for this type of project as everything was online and documented meaning that the excuse ‘oh sorry I misplaced it’ couldn’t be used and I believe this was a very good motivator for all. Another attribute, which I found useful during this project, was the use of the discussion page. This page allowed you to write down any ideas or thoughts about the project that you had and I found this very useful. Admittedly I was late starting the project due to other commitments and I was able to look at the discussion page to see where there were gaps and interact with other students. Along with positives to any group project there were also downfalls. I found that there were too many individuals focusing on the same thing and found a bit of repetition throughout the project. However, this aspect allowed us to go into further detail into each subsection. The project was also online which was beneficial however; there were times where I needed another group member to help me in some areas. As this was an online project it meant that I had to wait for a response, as I had to wait and see if anyone had read my message. Wikipedia doesn’t provide notifications when someone has responded to a comment in which I had left meaning I had to keep refreshing the page and finding my comment to see if there had been a response. This was very inconvenient and wasted a lot of time that could have been used more efficiently. The project was also started very early by some members however, due to circumstances I was not able to contribute to later meaning that I had to integrate my own work around other individuals. Overall, this was a very eye opening experience where it gave me the chance to work on a programme that I would not typically consider in using. I learnt a lot about Wikipedia and found that it offered applications and working platforms, which I did not know, existed. However, if I was to complete a group project like this again I do not believe I would use Wikipedia again. I am what you call a novice to this application and would prefer to use a piece of software that I would be more confident in using. Also, in regards to the amount of people who collaborated together I would have preferred to all meet up at least twice to delegate tasks and to also keep a track on our progress. Despite this I am very pleased with the overall project and believe that the group did a good job in exploring all the topics in depth.

Jowettgreen (discuss • contribs) 14:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note - This response was written and uploaded on the 4th of April. However, I forgot to sign this piece of work, please see that it was submitted and loaded before the allocated date and time through the signature of the first comment written by Kacollins95 below. Thank you*

Comments
I totally agree there are multiple positive and negatives to this particular project! I touch upon that in my own blog post. I personally loved the fact that I could work on my own time without having to worry about finding a time to meet up with my group to work. However that caused a little bit of disorganization with in the book itself. I would have liked if there were more topics to choose from so the groups would be smaller. You mentioned that having a lot of individuals being assigned the same topic allowed us to go into further detail into each subsection. At the end of the day, I focused more on my work and making sure I was contributed enough so I could get a good grade. Unless it related to my particular topic, I found myself not reading through all the book and its information because it was too over whelming. There was really no way each and every one of us could have been apart of creating the book each step of the way. Would you consider doing a wiki book assignment if the groups were smaller? Kacollins95 (discuss • contribs) 13:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I did appreciate that we could work on it in our own time, however, I am aware I did not use this time effectively due to other outstanding commitments which I had. I agree with the need for more topics the group I was in was relatively small compared to others but there were still approximately 15 people in my group. My approach to the project was to focus on my own work and integrate it as much as possible, however I found that in other individual's contributions they had left some information out or there were some parts, like the glossary, which had not been addressed and I took it upon myself to complete these areas. Even if the groups were smaller I don't think I would complete a wiki book again, I found the process quite overwhelming and I often spent more time on how to integrate trivial elements instead of focusing on the content and quality of my work which surely is what should be focused on. Jowettgreen (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia was not the best place to work on a project like that. I did learn a lot while trying to master this whole WikiWorld but like you said: I would not use Wikipedia again for a project like this. It took a lot of time to figure out how everything works and trying to remember what sort of indicators to use. I just realised that I had not signed my 4th discussion exercise (and now I see that you have not doe it either) because normally while writing essays or submitting uni work I do not have to add those. It is just an example of how there are little things that we had to learn when we started to work on this project. Those little things distracted me quite often and the time that I would have used for writing on my topic, I was searching how to add quotations or link to another section within the page. Wikibook was also problematic because it has no chat or similar communication system. We are so used to have notifications that it is difficult to realise that someone might have something important to say if there are no red dots or exclamation marks blinking to catch our attention. I missed quite a few important updates because I just didn't happen to read the whole talk page through when I went to add something on the section I was working on. I understand if you had problems getting other's attention and it is annoying not to know if someone has responded. Sirrinari (discuss • contribs) 15:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree, and thank you very much for pointing that out I will try to amend it as soon as possible, thank you! I do believe it is quiet interesting, there were many areas in which I struggled with due to being a novice in regards to how wikipedia works luckily I personally knew a couple of individuals in my group where we worked together, besides that I did not directly hear from other members in my group. I found it very frustrating, like you, that the project as a whole focusing on wikipedia attributes than my work and the quality of it instead. Jowettgreen (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It was interesting to see that you were a Wikibooks novice too because it definitely took me a while to get to grips with it all and I had to ask other team members for help on how to do stuff occasionally. This is where I think this assignment was really good in reflecting the ideas of Jenkins’ Participatory Democracy and how it links into Clay Shirky’s Cognitive Surplus because people were willing to share their knowledge with others in order to benefit the group as a whole by posting tips on our discussion page. However by grading everyone’s contribs, I think it slightly counteracted this as it became more of a case of every man for himself as some people started dominating the discussion page in order to bolster their contribs to get a higher grade. For this reason I feel like it might have been a more successful assignment if it was just the work that we posted that was graded as it might’ve been a bit less competitive. My group also struggled with repetition to a certain extent so we tried to counteract this by meeting up face-to-face to discuss any issues we had with the project and to decide who should write what. This again brings in the issue of contribs as it was difficult to reflect this on the discussion page. Nonetheless I, like you, found it interesting to learn how to use Wikipedia at least. Jdwharris (discuss • contribs) 12:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I do believe that there were some individuals who jumped the gun and completed as much as possible to benefit themselves. However, when i entered the group I know it was rather late in the process and I can't complain as there was some structure. it may have been more beneficial if we had more sections or even less people so there were sections we could have completed solely by ourselves instead of having to double up on a section which could have easily been addressed by one individual Jowettgreen (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jowettgreen you raise some very interesting points here, I agree with you and found that the discussion page was very beneficial, I found myself checking it daily and constantly asking questions to try and learn what other people were writing about and to gain some advice on my own topic. I agree with you when you say it was great that everything was online and documented and therefore nobody could make up excuses as to why they had not done it, I though this was great as well and allowed you to see how the rest of your group was doing as well. You mentioned that you did not receive any notifications when someone replied to you comment? I found that Wikipedia did provide notifications but maybe that was a slight fault in the site itself. I would also have to agree and say that I personally would prefer not to use this process again as I found it all too confusing and quite stressful, but overall it was a very different experience of uni work and I was glad to try something new. Kirstyyy smith (discuss • contribs) 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
While your contributions to both parts of the wiki portfolio are sufficient, there is much more that could have been done in order to enhance this. For instance, the assignment asked that you responded to 2 of your colleagues' posts for each of the exercises, which was not always met. Similarly, your engagement in the Wikibook chapter was limited to claimed an area to work on rather than developing content in a collaborative fashion. Nonetheless, you present some interesting ideas that gel with some of the core course material, but it would be useful to see further engagement here with secondary sources to demonstrate a mastery

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives a good brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a good range of concepts associated with your subject, and the effort to deliver critical definitions, drawing from relevant literature and scholarship, and your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is very much in evidence. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a good range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of limited critical engagement with set material, although most ideas and procedures insecurely grasped
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material limited, displaying a qualified familiarity with a minimally sufficient range of relevant materials
 * Argument and analysis:
 * poorly articulated and supported argument;
 * lack of evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * lack of evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections in discussion);
 * evidence of independent critical ability limited, due to the fact that your grasp of the analytical issues and concepts, although generally reasonable, is somewhat insecure.

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

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 14:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)