User talk:KGilbert

This user talk page will be used for an educational, digital media project.

Wiki Exercise #1
This is my first experience with Wikibooks and in comparison with other online platforms I am familiar with (e.g. Facebook, Youtube and blogs) I would link Wikibooks closely with blogs and Youtube. Concerning the qualitative differences, the nature of the different platforms, they can all be used for sharing thoughts, ideas and issues. However, even though Facebook does not have a limit to how much you can post in one status, Wikibooks and blogs are catered more to larger posts: I have used wordpress (blog) in the past for sharing short stories and I have looked at other blogs (e.g. cooking blogs) to gain knowledge on a particular subject. Blogs can be personal (like a diary) or more commercial (personal trainers use blogs to post exercise videos and diet plans etc.). Facebook is fast paced, sharing what you are doing in the moment and in my experience you do not use Facebook to get a lot of information on a particular subject, perhaps small things (club/society information and upcoming events) but not detailed information on, for example, a major event that you would expect large amounts of information and facts. Facebook, in my experience is more active and it is free to post, unlike blogs where there can be a charge in order to reach more viewers. Facebook is used on a personal basis; you would not allow access to everyone. You have control over your privacy, unlike wikibooks and blogs where the aim is to connect with a large audience. One major difference in the nature, concerning privacy, is the fact that users can edit your posts on wikibooks. This cannot be done on Facebook or Wordpress. Linking Wikibooks with Youtube, both platforms are used for gaining information on almost any subject. Youtube, however works with videos, not written material and like blogs, it can be personal too (e.g. I have a private music playlist that only I have access too).

KGilbert (discuss • contribs) 20:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

=== Comments on Wiki Ex#1 ==== Thank you for this input. I agree with your argument that while those social media platforms are different they are all used to share thoughts and ideas. It is interesting that you pointed all the limits on those different social media platforms. In a way, with all their differences, all of those social platforms complete each other, as they allow us to use them for different purposes. Clarabiswiki (discuss • contribs) 17:20, 9 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, it's really interesting that you compare wikis and blogs. This has been noted by students before, but I think decreasingly so, as vlog platforms and culture have displaced blogging (to an extent). It would be interesting to see where you take this line of thinking.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – you only posted in response to one (and two were required). Addressing the brief fully is essential at this level, and this would have affected your marks significantly in an assessed situation. However your one comment is very good. I like 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). Also - the reference to JS Mill! Excellent! As you get more proficient with wiki markup and functionality, you can do more of this, adding citation and formatting in such a way that links and transparency become much more clear. The whole argument you set out reminds me of the "enlightened self-interest" issue that Adam Smith (more or less contemporary with Mill) discusses.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 2: How visible am I?
How visible am I online? This question appears simple enough and some might be shocked to learn just how visible they actually are. In order to discover just how visible I am online I Google searched my full name and both my Instagram account (recently deleted) and Facebook account appeared at the top of my search results. You can also find that I am a member of a university committee and even though my Instagram account has been deleted, there is still proof that I once had one- a few images from my former Instagram page still appear when I search my full name- possibly due to the fact that my Instagram account was public when I had one. This supports the fear that once something is online, even if it is deleted, there is no real assurance that it will never be seen again. How I used Instagram and how I use Facebook is completely different. Instagram, for me, was a way to gain inspiration and ideas. I was able to search key words, linked with my own interests and discover thousands of images related. My Instagram profile was a way I could creatively show a side of my personality, share my interests and connect with people with similar interests. Facebook is more personal and private, I only allow friends and family to see my posts, pictures I am tagged in, things I like and comments I make. My friends and family can find more on my personal interests, clubs and societies I am involved with, where and what I am studying. I do have control over who can see my full Facebook profile, I simply go to the settings and privacy and I will have the options displayed in front of me. However, taking into account the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, my control can only go so far. Higher authorities, in the UK have the power of surveillance and phone and Internet companies are able to gather personal date passing over their networks: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/04/investigatory-powers-bill-the-key-points. Facebook is the most demanding social platform I am involved with and it has come to attention that if it were not for a fear of missing out, I would probably delete it altogether. When I use the word fear I am talking about a constant reminder, that if I were to delete my Facebook account, I would be affecting my social life in a big way. How so? Everything, social gatherings and events are all organised and advertised on Facebook- there are so many events I would not have been involved with if it was not for Facebook.

KGilbert (discuss • contribs) 10:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You made several very interesting points and suggestions that inspire to further discussion.

Firstly, I agree that it very easy to forget how visible the users of social and digital media are due to the fact that they use them on regular basis. Often we’re getting so lost in the Web, so occupied with sharing, commenting, liking, shopping etc. that we simply loose the awareness that a we are being watched. You’re right. Your control that Facebook gives you by letting you change visibility of your profile in privacy settings is illusory. Facebook itself has got full access to your profile, sharing it for instance with advertising companies. Interestingly you brought up your desire to delete Facebook and fear of missing out. I feel exactly the same about my social media account and only have one - Facebook. But… I think there is no coming back right now. As you said, giving up social media would be associated with the social isolation. It would also affect work and education. Therefore, there is no escape from partly, giving up our privacy. We live in McLuhan’s ‘global village’ and this is one the disadvantages. However, we should look at positives too! To find balance without forgetting that yes, we watched and we are being watched.

Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 09:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Exercise 3: Information Overload
Caught in a current of constant information, the result of technology? Linking to what David Boyd mentions in- Participating in the Always-On Lifestyle (2012)- I would agree that almost every aspect of our lives, offline or online, is always dragged back to technology and a sea of information- “online is always around the corner”. When I take into account my life- my work, studies and hobbies I can find, too easily, a connection with technology: I am required to go online at University in order to organise my classes and to find module information. In work, even though it involves me being offline, teaching in a swimming pool, I have to take a class register and report a student’s progress online. My involvement with the Tango Society, even though the activity itself is not online, it still relies on technology for music. I also require Facebook to update class information, promote the society and I require access online to send forms for room bookings. Even when I take into account the small everyday activities- cooking, meeting friends, planning future activities- they all involve me using technology- to find a recipe, to contact a friend, to discover events happening in and around the area. It is very easy to be distracted when there is access to so much information, we have so many options, just a click away and it can be difficult to prioritise. Even when I sleep I am open to information: I use my phone for an alarm clock so I am now sleeping along side technology and it can be too tempting to check emails first thing when I wake up. In order to cope with this constant flow of information I try to limit my reliance, find other ways of getting information, however, I can only get so far. It is impossible, in the world I live in, to escape from the current. There may be ways out but I would have to completely change my lifestyle and interests if I was to find an escape.

KGilbert (discuss • contribs) 11:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kaitlin, I really like the points you make in this post, and think the quote that you found from David Boyd ties in really well with the topic. As I also coach a sport as my job, I can relate to the point you are making. When coaching gymnastics we use ipods and a system called "Learn2", in which we take the register and constantly update each child's progress, and then the parents are provided with an online login so they can see their child's progress instantly. Do you use a similar programme? I also get very distracted easily with the abundance of information available on the World Wide Web, I often end up with dozens of tabs open on my laptop or multiple apps open on my phone. How has this abundance of information affected your involvement in the Wikibook project? Sammyforbes (discuss • contribs) 18:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Your post is very intriguing and engages to further discussion. The argument that every aspect of our life is tied up to technology is very on point. Indeed, without being 'on - line' we are very often not able to access the information required for academic, professional and social life. It can be seen as beneficial because everything we need to know is 'just around the corner', in front of us on our phone/laptop screen. However, along the information that we need, there are other types of information that can be distractive and irrelevant. Have you ever experienced the need to check your Facebook while researching important academic project online? I am guilty of it. The reason is that it is so easy to access - just one 'click' and we can transport ourselves to different, enhanced world. I often waste hours on digital procrastination. Your point about sleeping alongside technology, literally, and being open to information at any given time is very relevant but disturbing. Maybe most of us became the slaves of information? You write that you would happily change your lifestyle if it was possible. I think it is ironic that despite all the freedom that access to information and ability to create it, we lost our free will along the way.

Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 19:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Likewise I find the argument that everything in your life is in some way or another linked to technology and the prospect of being online very interesting and very accurate. It's really hard to find an area of life that doesn't, for one reason or another, require the use of being online - like you have mentioned. Changing your lifestyle completely to get rid of our reliance on technology also strikes a cord within me as I too am painfully aware that it is becoming increasingly difficult to not be 'online' as it were. Being one click away from the overpowering world of the internet. The above comment about losing our free will puts it perfectly, we are no longer free when we all rely on the internet so much. Courtney 1994 (discuss • contribs) 22:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Exercise 4- Wikibook reflection and evaluation
It has been argued that technology is, down to the core, a means of social interaction. It may not have been what was first intended but platforms on the internet that are not even considered social have adapted to leave room for some kinds of interaction (Naomi Baron). Most pages allow their material to be shared and by sharing on social media platforms like twitter or facebook, they are leaving room for discussion with a diverse audience. The Wikibook embodies the idea of the ‘hive mind’, a haven for the gathering of collective knowledge, the sharing of ideas and thoughts and the Wikibook Project relied heavily on interacting with others, something I found both beneficial and challenging:

Group Project

The group project opened my mind, allowing me to see ideas from other perspectives, which was good for expanding my knowledge on certain topics and allowed me to get a better grasp on subjects I was struggling to understand. I found it particularly useful for sharing links to articles and other sources online, through various tools available. The use of the discussion page was great for posting the structure of the book, allowing us to post drafts and peer review before publishing on our main wikibook page. However, I found it difficult planning the wikibook chapter, in detail, on the discussion page. For this we had to organise face-to-face meetings, allowing us to discuss our ideas in detail, then posting a clear plan online for follow-ups. Despite the benefits of collective knowledge, working as a team to finish this project, I found it difficult writing the chapter. I found it challenging contributing to posts, unsure of the writing style, trying to ensure my work flowed and worked well with the posts of my group members. At times I found the platform overwhelming because there was so much information. It was easy to get lost in the constant flow of words. Comparing the wikibook to other social platforms, the wikibook is not designed well for communicating. Facebook and twitter, for example are great for detailed communication because it can be clearly separated from the rest of the platform. One challenge I found with wikibooks was keeping on top of comments and messages; they were easily lost on the discussion page. Perhaps with more practice using wikibooks would become easier, like anything new, it just takes time and practice.

Weekly Exercise

I have found the weekly exercise useful for introducing the world of wikibooks. It allowed room for me to find my feet a bit before going in for the Group project that was much more challenging. It was also a good motivator, driving me to do additional readings in order to get a clearer and better understanding of the subjects. KGilbert (discuss • contribs) 11:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi :: You make some very interesting points in this post. What topic were you doing for the wikibooks chapter? I also found the discussion pages useful but sometimes found that it was hard to directly communicate with people as wikibooks did not give the other members of the group a direct notification to their phone, did you also have this problem? I can relate to your point about finding wikibooks quite hard to use, as there is specific coding that you need to use. For example there is a specific code for writing references and it was hard to get all members of the group to use the same formula.Sammyforbes (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Your post was very interesting. It is important how you mentioned that nowadays every website is encouraged to be interactive and to have social interactions. It is now an essential part of technology and some websites have adapted to meet that new requirement. The Wikibook website definitely fits with your definition of the 'Hive Mind' as it relies heavily on the sharing of information.

The group project was very interesting as it allowed all of us to think about certain topics we might not have thought of before. It also helped us share any information we had to help other students on their topic. Engaging with other students was essential since we had to make sure we would not repeat other people's idea.

I agree that it was difficult to write the posts as we were not sure how to write since we are so used to writing essays where we can include our own personal opinion. There was also a lot of new information shared daily on the discussion page and since we were not alerted of them with notifications like Facebook it was hard to keep up with the changes. I agree with you when you say that Wikibook is not designed well for communicating.

The weekly exercises were essential to teach us how to use Wikibook and to comment on other people's work.

Clarabiswiki (discuss • contribs) 10:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)
The introduction section is incredibly well-written, and summarises some of the points which follow. I think that a concerted effort could have been made to narrativize the chapter before proceeding to the discussion proper. The overall structure that follows is well thought out, and evidences deliberation, delegation and timely organisation. Coverage of many of the salient issues surrounding the relationship between technology and self are included, although the overall feel of the chapter tends towards high-end description, rather than analysis, debate and argument.

That said, some of the sections are incredibly detailed and well written. Where theorists are listed, often it is the case that the coverage is characterised by a list of accomplishments next to some biographical and bibliographical detail – without going into discussion and application of the theories themselves. Here, you have managed to avoid the trap of biographical list, but the movement towards discussion and application of the theories could have been more detailed and applied to the issues under discussion in the chapter.

Some of the sections are really well written, but lack evidence of research – particularly in drawing from any peer-reviewed material, which is essential to helping establish a written argument. The whole section on “Forms of self-representation” for example, has large chucks of text that contain no reference to this kind of material (although, to be fair, there are some interwiki links apparent). Again drawing from this section as an example, there could have been more use made of interwiki links to other chapters.

This could have benefitted the chapter enormously. Such interwiki links could have been extended to include more reference to other chapters in the book, such as connecting your subsection on “distrust of AI” and “newspapers facing decline” to the chapters on Online/real-life divide and news, evidence and memory respectively. This could also be useful in relation to interwiki links on the same chapter: for example, the whole section on blog/online diaries – I would have thought this would follow on quite neatly from the discussion of Jill Walker Rettberg’s work, particularly in relation to her book Blogging! (This section didn’t have a single link or reference, and where the relevance to concepts in this chapter may be considered self-evident to the author, it is the author’s job to connect these ideas through argumentation).

Later sections (including the material on dating sites, gaming and video) are much stronger in this regard, and do all of the necessary things outlined above that are missing from other sections.

Overall, reasonably well put together, especially considering the number of total students working on the chapter.


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

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


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


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

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content to a variable standard (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Satisfactory engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Reflexive, creative and fairly well-managed use of discussion pages using deployment of somewhat limited judgement relating to key issues, concepts or procedures