User talk:Kaitlineaston

My name is Kaitlineaston and I will be using this page as part of an educational class project. This page will be used to help reflect upon how people use wikibooks and to gather knowledge on Wikipedia/wikibooks as a whole.

Wiki exercise #1 - What makes a good Wiki?
I don't think there is any single answer as to what makes a good Wiki. Writing this after a very short experience of working on wikibooks means that we don't know all the answers to this question yet. I can only assume that a good wiki page consists of very clear and defined ideas about the one subject which then explains what you know and understand about the subject matter in greater detail. Online collaboration differs depending on the media platform - Facebook and Twitter are more informal than wiki platforms.

There are a few differences to be noted between social media engagement and wiki engagement. Social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter are seen as a way to share your social life and personal experiences with your friends. Whereas, Wikibooks seem to be used for a variety of reasons - they can be used to express knowledge of a particular subject that you are interested in. People use social media to share pictures of their life and express their personal opinions - people would not engage in this behavior on wikibooks or Wikipedia. Unlike the engagement we see on social media, engagement on wiki tends to be much less social and much more educational, we would access wiki to gain information or knowledge.

Kaitlineaston (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 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.


 * 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.


 * 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'm unsure as to why you would assume about the wiki - whereas it's true that your personal experience of it may be limited (as a producer, but not as a consumer, right?) there's nothing wrong at this level, with drawing from the set reading to build a critical argument.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – none undertaken. This would effectively halve your mark.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments

I agree with your comment that a good wiki consists of defined ideas, because a frequent problem on wikipedia and wikibooks sites involves contributors adding to pages without the right knowledge, resulting in incorrect and misleading wiki pages. I like your comment about ideas combining to form more detailed wiki pages about various topics as I think it is important for more people to become producers as well as consumers to enhance the content across the platform.

I think you have raised an important point about the subjectivity shown on social media sites. It is important to remember that a good wiki page should be objective and have the purpose to inform and educate; On Facebook and Twitter people are able to express their own opinions freely because of the difference in uses between the platforms. Ailsaharv (discuss • contribs) 21:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@user:kaitlineaston I think you make some really good comments about the differences between wiki engagement and social media engagement. I think your comment about the differing behaviour people use on each site is important as people are a lot more informal on social media sites in comparison to wikipedia. I think you could also add that one of the reasons for this differing behaviour could be that people are aware who is viewing their content on social media platforms so feel more comfortable and can be more informal, in comparison to wikipedia where you don't know who is going to view your content.

posted by user:sammyforbes Sammyforbes (discuss • contribs) 11:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I think these are some really key points regarding the difference between Wikipedia and most other social media networks. You have made the point that poeple have different purposes when posting on wikipedia compared with facebook or twitter, the latter being a more socially focused purpose. I would add another big difference being the tone which is used on each site. Wikipedia requires a more formal tone which is not required on other sites such as facebook or twitter.

Wiki Exercise 2 # Visibility and data trails
Being a frequent user of many social networking sites, I would consider myself to be fairly visible online. However, the visibility of my personal profile differs depending on which networking site I use. I have profiles on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tinder and Snapchat, but I have different privacy settings on each site. Information that can be accessed through my various profiles includes basic details about myself, such as age, name etc, to how many siblings I have and what I study at Unversity. Previous and current employment details can be found on my Facebook page, alongside what my interests and hobbies are. However, not all of my profiles contain as much information as this.

 Facebook 

I consider my Facebook profile to be the least secure of all my social networking profiles. I tend to share much more information about myself on Facebook than I would on any other platform. This is mainly because I have more friends and family on Facebook than any other form of social media. I have a variety of picture albums on my profile that range from 2013 to the present so people can easily go into my gallery and know exactly what I was up to. I am more likely to post recent pictures and statuses on Facebook to keep my friends and family updated on my life as I study here at University. Although a wide range of information about myself is available on my Facebook profile, my settings are set to private therefore no one will be able to access my full profile without me accepting their friend request. However, I do acknowledge that Facebook can be hacked or that people could be viewing my profile through someone else's page so I do not have complete control over who could access information about me.

 Instagram 

My Instagram account is very different to my Facebook account. I have less people following me on my Instagram and I consider it to be much more private as when my name is searched only a small profile picture will appear and further access will be denied until I accept the follow request. The content I post on my Instagram account is also different to Facebook. As only pictures can be posted on Instagram, I have far less of a presence here than I do on Facebook - I try to post only the best pictures on my Instagram account whereas I tend to be more carefree when I post on Facebook.

 Snapchat 

For me, my Snapchat account feels like the most secure profile I have online. No information is available about me just by having me as a friend. As we need to add or accept people on Snapchat, I only have friends that I know on it. I control what I post and how many people see it. For example, if I post something in my story I want all of my friends to see it but if I want only a select few to see a snap then I'll just send a private one. I can also time how long I want someone to see something for ranging from 1 second and disappearing after 10 seconds. I will also get a notification if any one screenshots any of my snaps - so I know exactly what they have saved and who saved it. This is why I feel that this account is the most secure out of my digital presence.

 Relation to Wikibooks 

I think that the main relation that can be made between all social networks and Wikibooks is that nothing can be erased forever. For example, the Wiki contribs records exactly what you post and when you posted it - even if you delete it this infromation can still be accessed. This is much like our presence on social media - once we post something then it is there forever and the evidence of what you have posted will still be there in the underlying surface, no matter how hard you try to erase it. This, in turn, leads to us questioning whether anything really is private online? although we have privacy settings this does not necessarily mean that our privacy is protected.

Kaitlineaston (discuss • contribs) 00:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments

'(Comment) Hi Kaitlin, you mentioned that Facebook is probably the least secure out of all your social media profiles but it’s the one in which you share the most information. Would you say although you are sharing more content you are more cautious about what you are posting? Have you ever thought about deleting Facebook for any reason? I was discussing this on another page and think it would be a hard hit on your social life as Facebook plays such an active role in planning and communication between friends, what do you think? I don’t have an Instagram account so I’m not totally sure as to how it works, but if you were to add hashtags to your photos does that allow more people to see your photos even if they aren’t your Instagram friends? I agree that snapchat does seem to be the most secure when it comes to you controlling exactly who sees your photos and videos, although lately I have been getting friend requests from random people and I’m not sure where they got my user name, and they are still able to send me snaps as they have my snapchat user name. I’m unsure as to if they can see my story even if I haven’t added them as a friend. So i feel sometimes not fully understanding how a social media platform may lead to private information being shared unwillingly, in my case anyway. Jackhand1 (discuss • contribs) 02:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)



I agree with your comment that you feel your information is more secure on different platforms, as I also do and change what I post depending on the platform I use. Do you ever think about/ worry about the fact that Snapchat own the content you add to your stories and send to your friends privately? Ailsaharv (discuss • contribs) 10:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say that I'm cautious about what I post on Facebook as I know the majority of the people I have on it and this is probably why I use Facebook more often than other accounts - I know more people will see my posts on Facebook. I know people tend to be cautious about what they post because they have family and work colleagues on Facebook, but this isn't the case for me. My family and work colleagues know me fairly well so they don't have a problem with anything I post and I feel comfortable posting whatever I want knowing this. I've never thought about deleting Facebook as I agree that it would be a hard hit on my social life. I use Facebook as a way to communicate with family and friends back home while i'm at uni so deleting it just wouldn't be a convenient option for me. I also use Facebook to organise group projects that I need to do and as the majority of my modules require group work, Facebook is useful for academic purposes as well as my social life. I don't often hashtag my pictures but if you do then it is available to view by anyone who searches your hashtag. For example, if I posted a picture of the uni campus and tagged it #igstiruni then you could see my post by searching for this hashtag. Random people don't ever really add me but are you sure they can still see your snapchats if you haven't accepted them? I don't think people can view your Snapchat story if you don't have them as a friend and you can also check who has viewed your snaps by clicking on your story and it will bring up a list of people who have viewing it. I think that private information can end up being shared unwillingly even if you do have a full understanding of how social media platforms work.

Kaitlineaston (discuss • contribs) 19:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say I worry about the fact that snapchat own the content that I post as I would be comfortable sharing my snaps with anyone I know. I don't post anything that private (except terribly filtered selfies and the occasional video of Dusk) but I don't consider this to be a major security or privacy issue. Do you tend to worry about the content you post and the fact that Snapchat owns this?

Kaitlineaston (discuss • contribs) 10:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That is an interesting point. I would say that currently I am not too worried about this issue, but because these sites have become more prevalent in recent times we can not be sure of the consequences of using these sites in the future. You never know if you might become famous and Snapchat may sell your humorous Snapchat videos for publicity. Then your Snapchat stories are not just to people you know. Although this may seem unlikely, people in the public eye did not use this platform in their earlier lives so we do not know what to expect. I will not worry about this just now.

Ailsaharv (discuss • contribs) 10:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Kaitlineaston. I also regard Snapchat to be one of the most secure platforms that I use. I rarely, if at all, approach it with caution because I do feel that it offers a much stronger sense of control. It’s true that we have a pretty solid grip on who is able to view our content in terms of regulating the number of people who see the snap or its duration before it disappears. The “disappearing content” feature seems to be one of the biggest perceived advantages for a lot of Snapchat users, but it does beg the question of what actually happens to the content once it disappears. Upon researching the Terms of Service history, the specifics of snaps “self destructing” has been subject to debate over the years and Snapchat has been criticised for not being entirely forthcoming about the data that it collects on its users. Granted, these specific examples are from 2014, but I think it illustrates the point that we should think more critically about our perception of privacy on these apps. We can’t always be sure that our data is kept confidential. Criticisms of Snapchat raise a good point that much like when files “disappear” from our phone or laptops, deleted content is still very much concrete in a lot of ways.Tonyvall (discuss • contribs) 10:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Although you do make a valid point, I believe that it is unlikely that such a well known company(Snapchat) would sell your snaps for publicity. If this did happen then Snapchat would basically be boycotting their own app as no one would trust and and therefore they would stop using it. So, i do not think you need to worry about this at all.

Kaitlineaston (discuss • contribs) 19:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You point out some interesting examples that I have not yet seen, I agree with your point we should think more critically about privacy on the apps we use. I definitely think that your point is still relevant to today even though the examples are from 2014 as the app has not changed much over the years.

Kaitlineaston (discuss • contribs) 19:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

WIki Exercise 3 # Information Overload
In a world where we are plagued by information overload it can be easy to get distracted. There is countless information available on the internet about any one given topic and it is likely that half of this information is completely irrelevant to your research. We encounter many types of information overlaod in our lives whether it may be books, lectures or social media. The question is still the same - how do we overcome this? There are ways in which we can filter the information to more relevant sources. For example, if you're researching for academic purposes then you can use Google Scholar. This gives us academic sources and helps us cut out bogus sources. But even on Google Scholar we can still experience information overload, the results might be more suited to our research but there is still countless pages of information. The most obvious thought to overcome this would be to try and filter our information even more. However, this is not always a good thing. When you google something, google automatically filters what you see based on your recent search history and the type of articles/books you tend to read. So if I were to google something I would get different results than the person sitting next to me - my results are more likely to reflect what I want to hear. This can result in us making bad and not fully informed choices - it can also lead to misinterpretations and bias. So is there really any way to overcome information overload? Personally, I think there is no quick fix. Your best bet is to take breaks in between searches to clear your mind, use google scholar and pray your lucky enough to hit the information jackpot.

In regards to the Wikibook project I have found it difficult to filter the information I need. This has resulted in me making the same searches over and over again and clicking on each link hoping that I find what I need. A great way to overcome this was to go onto the reading list and have a look - also looking at the long lists of recommended reading helped to overcome this. Collaboration with people researching the same topic is also pivotal in dealing with information overload as they can recommend reading to you and you can return the favor by sharing your findings. Having other projects due around the same time as the Wikibook means trying to balance my time carefully between each, but it also results in double the information overload. So improve this, I have set aside dedicated time for Wiki and collaborated with peers to gather information.

Contributing factors for how we choose to deal with this will be different for us all. I might be influenced by google scholar and believe that every source I see there will be relevant to what I need, but someone else might surf the internet for hours on end making sure the information they obtain is precise. This could be because some of us are more committed than other or maybe some just know how to filter information better. Depending on how experienced you are with the internet you may or may not know tricks to find out things faster. For example, I think it is safe to say that most of us will be able to find information faster than most of our parents - or maybe not, as I previously stated - the internet is different for everyone. Kaitlineaston (discuss • contribs) 11:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 4 # Reflective Account
The Wikibook project was different to any of my other academic projects in many ways. The platform we used encouraged us to engage with our classmates through the discussion pages, but I found this hard to keep up with if I was not at home. Opening Wiki on my phone was problematic as the information to scroll through seemed endless and I found it more difficult to navigate/ edit posts on my phone than I would on my laptop. In regards to communicating when I was on my laptop, I felt I was always checking the discussion pages to try and keep up as I would not get notifications to inform me when someone had posted. Thus, I feel like this can be related to our chapter as a whole - persistent connectivity and the fear of missing out. I wanted to be in persistent contact with my peers so I did not feel like I was missing out on information shared or changes that people were planning to make.

The Wiki platform was useful in regards to sharing content with classmates. It was easy to go onto the discussion pages and post a link or the name of a useful article under the relevant sub titles. On our discussion page we also had a "useful tips" and "useful reading" section so I felt that this easily allowed our group to share content with each other. As we were trying to be active as much as possible during this collaborative project, I think that this made us a part of "The always-on culture". Personally, I was always online checking my wiki page as often as possible to ensure that I was up to date - this also intertwines with the concept of FoMO and persistent connectivity as I believe that this project encouraged us to experience all of these concepts.

I found writing on a public platform a lot different to writing an essay. Knowing that anyone could read my work made me a bit more cautious about posting. I felt more nervous about my work as it wasn't just a marker looking at it. This made me think twice about what I was writing to make sure that the point I was making was clear to everyone. I also felt that this project was much less informal than an essay in the sense of the posts and vocabulary used. As anyone could read it I had to make sure everyone would understand my work, this made me feel a bit less pressured to sound "smart" when posting entries. Kaitlineaston (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I agree with the point you made that this particular platform seemed hard to keep up with unless you were on a laptop. I was also trying to contribute on my phone, as I was out of the country the last weekend before the assignment was due and couldn't bring my laptop with me, and found it incredibly tough. The format of the Wikibooks discussion page does not seem designed for extended discussion, as it is very tough to keep track of the conversation. However, like you said, it was nice to share ideas and tips on that page so there were definitely benefits to conversing online. Charkleske (discuss • contribs) 09:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I also like the point you make about Wikibooks being hard to follow updates on if you were not at home. You have to keep checking the platform to be able to see new updates as they happen. I think that this was not too bad in the case of our project because we had a specific time to complete the project in, ensuring that everybody was on the page and checking the updates. I like that you related this issue to the issue that we based our chapter of the book on. It was interesting to be encountering the things we were writing about while we were working. This was one of the reasons I think that meeting up in person and engaging in conversation on other social media sites was helpful. It meant that we could all keep on top of things and remind each other of what needed to be completed.

Towards the end of the project I thought the layout of our pages were improved. The sections that you mention helped us to organise our workload. The skills we learned to be able to format the pages were improving throughout the course of the project so I think our work on the book was more efficient towards the end and much more content was added; new ways of expressing information such as in images and tables were discovered and I saw an improvement in our work.

I agree that this was completely different to other academic projects and think that we learned new skills which we wouldn't have had the opportunity to use in essay writing, which you mention. Ailsaharv (discuss • contribs) 11:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)
The Introduction section here is a little perfunctory, but the main Concepts section is where all of the key sections are mapped out. Each section has its own descriptive short paragraph, summarising the discussion and concept in fairly neat and concise ways. The overall effect of this is that the chapter is given a sense of narrative and structure from the outset. Whilst the discussion in various sections doesn’t always live up to this, and there are one or two inconsistencies, this ought not to diminish too much for the achievements evidenced here.

As mentioned, the sections themselves generally contain good content, but there are inconsistencies regarding the strength of argument, and citation of sources. An obvious example of this would be the first history section, for which citation of sources doesn’t occur until the paragraph on the 1990s!

The unusual step of including a survey and posting the results here is an extremely useful one. Something that absolutely HAS to be thought through in ALL future work is that if one is conducting a survey (even if for demonstration purposes, as included here) or indeed ANY work with people, one must go through an ethics approval process – this is to ensure no harms (relative or absolute) occur for researchers or participants. This process will become more apparent later in the degree programme, particularly in final year projects. The use of interwiki links connecting all of the sections of the chapter together is both very useful and evidences good levels of project management, delegation of workflow, and joined-up collaboration. One thing that would have benefitted the chapter enormously, is if these interwiki links could have been extended to include more reference to other chapters in the book. For example, you have a subsection on Surveillance uses – there could have been interwiki links to various relevant sections in other chapters (especially, perhaps, Privacy in a Digital Age chapter).

Plenty of evidence of reading, secondary research and application of ideas from peer-reviewed sources, as well as other sources from popular culture and journalistic materials. This does tend to vary quite considerably from section to section, however, with some sections oddly drawing from newspaper online articles around topics for which there are materials available in the further reading lists (the subsections on internal effects, the Google effect and others, where there are some obvious aspects of that reading e.g. Vaidhyanathan and his book on the Googlization of Everything). Excellent section on FOMO.

The references section evidences research, reading and sharing of resources. However, the depth and range of sources could be considerably improved.


 * Good. 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.

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 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