User talk:Katienotcatriona

Hello, my name is Katie. I'm from Scotland and currently studying Film & Media at university. I've set up this Wikibooks page for a module I'm doing on Digital Media and Culture. We are carrying out a project that is interested in exploring the nature of Wikibooks.

Katienotcatriona (discuss • contribs) 18:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

What Makes a Good Wiki?
I have never produced content for Wikipedia or Wikibooks before but I have been a consumer of their content. The experience of using a Wiki (both producing and consuming) is very different from using social media sites, which I am much more familiar with producing on as well as consuming. This is because Wiki*edia have different goals and purposes to social media sites.

Wiki*edia have a purpose to collect information through collaboration, whereas social media sites are set up to facilitate communication, sharing and engagement of their users, without a specific collective purpose. Meanwhile, users engage with social media sites for all different reasons and individually use different sites for different reasons and therefore, social media users can engage with a myriad of public and private discussions– everything from politics, to celebrities, to their own personal lives, which can cause more controversy than others. This can result in angry arguments which seem to achieve nothing. If you’ve ever witnessed an argument anywhere on the Internet, whether it be on Facebook, Twitter, or the comments section of a YouTube cat video, you may start to believe that there is absolutely no qualitative value to online communication, regardless of the platform. However, these sites are not necessarily being used to collaborate towards a goal so they don't need to facilitate amiable collaboration.

You could argue that Wiki*edia collaboration is superior to that of social media because they are able to produce quantifiable content, regardless of whether this is 'quality' content, there was still a qualitative discussion that produced something substantial. Yet, I think it would be too simplistic to argue that Wiki*edia are the only place where productive collaboration can take place as social media sites do not have an ultimate goal/objective of collecting information and so the only reason for collaboration or communication is for personal interest. I would also argue that social media can be used for productive collaboration, as speaking from personal experience, I have participated in an event called GISHWES which is a team-based charity challenge where people from all over the world are put together in teams and given various tasks to complete which range from the charitable (e.g. donating blood) to the bizarre (e.g. roller-skating through a museum). Thousands of people participate every year and many coordinate their teams across social media as their team members all reside in different places all over the globe. Therefore, I would argue that when there is a specific goal or objective, productive collaboration can be achieved on social media as well as Wiki*edia. Katienotcatriona (discuss • contribs) 21:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

&#8593; Back to top

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.


 * 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.


 * 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, although the content is pretty strong (and there are some very interesting issues that you can explore off the back of this subject matter!) 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.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are especially good. I like that you have framed some of your responses to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!) and also 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). Keep this up!

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 18:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

&#8593; Back to top

Comments
I agree with a lot of what you have said, and have found that our experience of both wikipedia and social media sites are very familiar. I have also never produced content for wikipedia but have been a consumer of the content, mainly to look up quick descriptions of a certain area/topic etc. I also find your point of wikipedia having different goals and purposes to social media sites very interesting. As I wrote in my own post “One of the clear differences between social media such as Facebook, twitter, Instagram or snapchat and a Wikipedia is the content which is posted. - Social media platforms such as Facebook is not always useful as there is a lot of irrelevant information/posts which can be a distraction.” I think this links with what you’re saying about wikipedia having the purpose of collecting information through collaboration whereas social media platforms are mainly for communicating more casually. I agree with your point of wikipedia being superior to social media because of their ability to produce more professional content although i think it always depends on the circumstances and what kind of content someone could be in search of. for example if I wanted to learn about a particular phrase or topic I would consume wikipedias content but I wouldn’t if I was searching for a particular person or event. Finally, I found your comment on the event ‘GISHWES’ interesting as it is a distinctive example of when social media platforms can be used when there is a specific objective in place. Overall I feel we have the same opinions/views of online collaboration in a general sense and there is quite clear differences between wikipedia platform and social media platforms. ArianneStirling (discuss • contribs) 20:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

&#8593; Back to top

Visibility and Data Trails
A few years ago I Googled my own name out of interest and all of the links were about my aunt (who has the same last name as me) because she is an author. Now when I Google my name the first links are about me - my Instagram, Flickr and Pinterest accounts. However, my Twitter, Facebook and Tumblr accounts don't come up and that's because I have changed the privacy settings specifically so they aren't listed on search engines. I also make sure that users can't search me with my email address. I like to keep my personal details private, or only visible to people whom I have accepted - such as on Facebook where everything is only viewable to users who I have added. Meanwhile on Twitter and Tumblr I only have my first name on my profile and no other personal information is disclosed publicly. I technically have less control on these sites as my profiles are public so I can't control who sees what I publish, but I can still block specific users if I need to, but usually this is only spam bot accounts.

Although I like to make sure my privacy settings are very secure, I often use my Facebook and Google accounts for the ease and convenience of logging in to new apps or websites instead of creating an account from scratch. I think that this laziness is the main reason people will relax their attitude towards control over their visibility. It's so much easier to connect every new account to your Google or Facebook accounts so that you don't have to remember what password/email combination you used. However, I haven't got that much important personal information stored on Facebook or Google anyway so I am comfortable with sharing it.

There are certain things that I want to control more securely and take greater caution about sharing - such as my payment information, home address, email, phone number. However, even though I want these things to be secure, I still do share them - on Google I have my home address saved in maps my debit card details are saved in my laptop browser's autofill. I consider these to be securely saved but I could be wrong. Again, it's the laziness and convenience of not having to go find my debit card every time I want to order something from Amazon or download a game from Steam or Origin that makes me happy to save my bank details for later.

I like to think that I have full control over my visibility online however, I've lost track of how many accounts I have: from social media, to online gaming, to iPhone apps, to forums, to registering products like my graphic tablet, and even things like registering to get free WiFi in a cafe, I probably have a much greater visibility than I think. However, as I have mentioned, there are certain things that I make sure I only share with trusted sites. I don't mind so much being visible in terms of my name, the screen name I usually use, or my face (in pictures), so long as the information I consider important is secure and controlled by me.

Katienotcatriona (discuss • contribs) 22:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

&#8593; Back to top

Comments

 * Hi Katienotcatriona, I find it very interesting what you were saying about wanting to keep payment information more secrue than everything else, I'm very much the same. I use paypal mostly because it is the most secure thing I know of for paying online, and unlike my other passwords (which are all variations of the same thing) I have it as a unique password, I have my thumbprint access to it on the mobile app etc. But I too am lazy, and yes I have autofill saved on some websites for paypal...I dont know what I'd do if my laptop was stolen. I also have my credit card information saved for the ease of fast food deliveries on late nights. Do you think our generation takes this sort of technological advances for granted and we have become a bit too reliant on the 'security' of our devices? BethIrish (discuss • contribs) 21:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi BethIrish, thank you for your comment! Yes, I think we do rely on it too much - I definitely relate to the fast food deliveries! I think having your finger print on your phone is a good extra layer of protection and when it comes to banking details these companies do take security seriously. For example many websites advise that you provide your phone number so you have to enter a code that they text you when you log in. But I think many people would be too lazy to do that, including myself, and I think we all like to leave our accounts logged into our devices anyway, and as you say - this would be a problem if my laptop got stolen. Overall, even if there are added layers of protection, I think we are very accustomed to trusting these sites, and that could be taken advantage of. What do you think? - Katienotcatriona (discuss • contribs) 21:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Katienotcatriona, Yes, I think our complete trust in technology to keep our privacy and account informtaion private. We might be putting ourselves at some danger although if i did lose my phone or laptop I would probably cancel my cards like I would if I lost my purse, just in case.
 * BethIrish (discuss • contribs) 16:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * : I think this post is very interesting! You addressed all the main issues and really got my attention.
 * To begin with, I found your point about ‘digital laziness’ worth exploring. I am guilty of using my Google and Facebook accounts to log on new websites. Therefore, we voluntarily give up our privacy for our comfort. I would say that this one of the most disturbing traits of this ‘information society’ that we live in.


 * More importantly, you dressed the issue of online payment. My bank details are also saved in my browser’s autofill. However, I think I will have to change it as the safety of them is disputable. Not only ‘a real thief’, a human is able to access it but there are also the risk of ‘digital theft’ making use of them.


 * Also, you’re right there is no escape from being visible online. Everytime we log into the Web we live our data trails that don’t disappear. Therefore we have to be aware that the common definition of ‘private’ is being redefined in digital world. But I agree with you, the important importation should stay in our control and that’s the issue we, as society (knowledge not information society) should start talking about more in public. It is necessary to have organisations and institutions who care about users of digital media and help them to keep as much privacy as possible.


 * Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 09:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment! I liked what you said about the definition of 'private' being redefined in the digital world. There are definitely different expectations to do with privacy online and offline - you wouldn't tell a stranger where you're from, where you work etc. but we give this information to Facebook and let it tell third parties this information all the time. That's definitely something interesting to think about! - Katienotcatriona (discuss • contribs) 11:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * @Katienotcatriona I definitely agree with the point you made that you have lost track of how many social media accounts you have, as well as what sites you have given your email or other information to just for convenience. I am also guilty of divulging my basic personal information for ease of use, such as wifi sign-up, and it really is strange that we live in a society where we barely question giving out our information. Of course we do not openly share financial information or home addresses as openly as we do emails, it is still thought provoking that it is just the norm to be asked for our information at every turn on the internet.


 * I also agree with @BethIrish with regard to her point that we rely on our technology to be secure and private, however we do not really have a good idea of how secure our information actually is on our devices.


 * Charkleske (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

&#8593; Back to top

Information Overload
When it comes to being distracted by information online I think it's a matter of choice: if I don't want to be distracted then I won't let myself be distracted, I'll ignore notifications or put my phone and my laptop on 'do not disturb' but if I want to procrastinate then I'll let myself get distracted and open Tumblr or YouTube. If I'm busy doing something else I'll completely forget about my phone, for example, I haven't looked at it during the time I've been writing and editing this post because I'm focused on this just now. If I can't use my my phone because it's broken I do get agitated, but that's because it's one of the most expensive things I own, not because I'm a lazy, entitled Millennial who just has to get back to distracting herself with cat videos.

I do find the demands of engagement to be too much from time to time, but only when I'm tired or have had enough social engagement for one day. There is definitely a demand to be available, as well as to understand online popular culture. My younger cousins are 13-14 and they all have smart phones and social media accounts. I had social media accounts at that age too but the difference was that I had a Nokia C3, (the Nokia that looked like a blackberry) and if you clicked the button to go on the internet by accident you'd be frantically pressing back for your dear life because you didn't want to charge your parents five thousand pounds. That is to say, you only went online at home on a computer, not on your phone at school. However, by 2013 it seemed like everyone had a smart phone, so the online world was far more present. Once everyone has access to the internet all the time, wherever you are, then you can show people the latest viral video anywhere, instead of just at your home computer. Information and engagement is so persistent and so fast moving, if you don't keep up to date then you will fall out of sync, and that's very demanding.

And so, I do find the engagement/discussion part of the Wikibooks project to be demanding and tiring. However, I do feel like the functionality of Wikibooks does slow down or calm the engagement process as although you get notified when someone 'pings' you, you don't get notified every time someone edits the page. A more extensive notification system might be helpful as when the page starts getting longer it's hard to keep on top of what's being changed and added. However, social media sites have extensive notification systems but this doesn't always help anyway, as for example, Facebook usually updates automatically now when someone adds a comment to a post, and even tells you when someone is typing, but back in 2010-2011 you would have to always refresh the page to see new comments. This meant that if you were, say, having a lively debate and exciting conversations on a fan page, the notification system would sometimes not be able to keep up and it would get confusing, with several strands of conversation getting mixed up (and slick comebacks not being so slick). So, if Wikibooks did have a notification system, say to alert you when someone edited a page you're watching, it may be just as flawed. At any rate, perhaps not having persistent notifications does also allow you to focus on what you're doing and not be distracted by everyone else, as it is a different sort of collaboration to just a fun conversation on Facebook, instead it has a specific goal to achieve.

To help improve the workflow for the Wikibooks project therefore, my team from my lab have decided we're going to message each other on Facebook when we make an update so we know to check/reply soon. We're also going to meet up and discuss and then post to the discussion page while we're discussing to keep track of our train of thought.

- Katienotcatriona (discuss • contribs) 22:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

&#8593; Back to top

Comments
Hi, I like what you said about distraction being a choice. I do the same thing as you when I want to focus by putting my phone on airplane mode to minimise distractions. I find I sometimes get distracted by things that aren't linked to technology too like making myself a cup of tea or watching a bird outside the window. I also like that you highlighted the stereotype of lazy entitled Millenials by emphasising that everyone works in different ways and that it is problematic to lump everyone into one stereotype simply based on the generation they were born in. But again, like you said, technology is developing so fast that even people within the same generation are witnessing changes like the Nokia C3 and troubles with accessing the internet (I too remember being charged a pound each time I accidentally pressed the internet button). It will be interesting to see what changes come next, and whether or not the constant notifications from Facebook will become even more constant throughout other platforms too, or if they have hit their peak and will devolve to accommodate those who prefer a break from social media. EmilymDaniel (discuss • contribs) 11:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi thank you for your comment! Oh yeah I forgot to include offline distractions too, I do the same, especially the tea thing. I'll sit down to do something and think "no I better make tea first" and then while I'm doing that I'll do the dishes and get a biscuit and... then it drags on. So I think maybe in some ways getting distracted by technology is less detrimental because at least if I'm just opening another tab on my browser I'm still sitting at my desk instead of being in another room finding more stuff to do!


 * That's an interesting point about the development of technology. Perhaps they'll have to become more streamlined and have easier options to personalise how push notifications are sent, especially with development of technologies like smart watches which bring you notifications when you don't even have your phone with you. If we get more technology that's on our bodies (perhaps like the eye implants in Black Mirror) then the settings will have to become more specific. Although Google Glass didn't pick up at all so maybe we're safe from that for the moment! - Katienotcatriona (discuss • contribs) 13:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Black Mirror is a very good example, I really like how it explores humans in relation to technology. While most of the episodes often present technology in a negative way (although this can be contested as technology is inherently neutral), there are other more optimistic shows which explore technology in a positive light, such as Star Trek. Technology enhances the lives of the characters while allowing them to carry out missions of peace and exploration. It'll be interesting to see which way technology goes. EmilymDaniel (discuss • contribs) 16:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * yeah it's good, even within Black Mirror they show technology as good and bad - San Junipero shows a more positive view for example. Star Trek definitely shows more positives though, as you said it enhances their lives. Also in Star Trek: First Contact, they go back in time to just before humans first made contact with alien life. At the time the Earth is divided and at war but after getting into space they manage to unite and develop into the utopian Earth that we know from the Star Trek universe where all the problems of today have been solved and we're all enlightened - largely through technological advancements and connecting with more advanced species, like the Vulcans. The utopia of Star Trek is a nice optimistic thought, but shows like Black Mirror remind us of the dangers and how human flaws can bring out the worst in technology. - Katienotcatriona (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Just as a sidenote, I've added a section on the Borg for our Wikibook in relation to collective intelligence. Thought it would be of interest to you, and if you have anything you would like to add, that would be awesome! To relate back to your comment, there are positive and negative portrayals of technology in both Black Mirror and Star Trek (the Borg and San Junipero being prime examples which subvert viewer's expectations). Both arguably remind us of the dangers and (as you discussed) how human flaws bring out the worst in technology. EmilymDaniel (discuss • contribs) 14:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * aww cool, I like it! Just read your section on our book, it's great! (Voyager is my favourite series!) - Katienotcatriona (discuss • contribs) 00:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I feel bad for clogging up your user page, but Voyager is my favourite too, I love Seven and the Doctor (and Janeway of course). And thank you! I've been wanting to incorporate the Borg into the Wikibook somehow haha. EmilymDaniel (discuss • contribs) 00:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * no bother, I love an excuse to talk about Star Trek. Ahh, I agree - they are the best characters! Yes, always incorporate Star Trek into your life somehow, haha! - Katienotcatriona (discuss • contribs) 00:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I can empathise with your comments on getting distracted. Sometimes I too ‘allow’ myself to procrastinate by having tabs such as Facebook or Youtube staring at me. However when I’m in the mindset of getting something done, those tabs will be closed and my phone will be out of reach, much like you. I remember the times of accidentally clicking the internet button on old phones! How nostalgic! It’s crazy to think how fast technology has developed since then. Do you think it’s a positive or negative thing now that ‘everyone’ has a smartphone nowadays, and the the online world has a lot more presence in everyone’s life? I think it’s probably a bit of both - there are obviously benefits but are we missing out on a lot because we’re glued to our online devices? It’s good that you regularly contact your group on Facebook whenever you’ve made a change. My sub-group doesn’t do that (yet) so I have just been searching on the page daily with the search tool (ctrl+f) the date, and all the new updates will appear to me. CammeyNotCameron (discuss • contribs) 14:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi thank you for your comment! I agree yes, I think it is a bit of both. On the one hand anyone can access so much information wherever you are - as long as you have an internet connection and a device. On the other hand, constantly being connected means you're expected to be online and connected all the time. Also, being online can be fun, you can form communities and be creative, but it can also make it easier for people to be horrible and troll people.


 * And oh I'm going to use that finding the date thing, that's a good idea! - Katienotcatriona (discuss • contribs) 15:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I think you make a great point about the fear of “falling out of sync” if you’re not constantly informed or engaging with online popular culture. Thinking about it, so much of online culture is embedded in how we interact with one another offline. I think about the conversations I have with my friends, for example, and a large portion of what we talk about is always tied to what we’ve seen or read online. In a lot of ways, it’s the backdrop for much of our offline communication and plays a huge role in how we bond. I think that’s ultimately the reason why a lot of our generation feels this pressure to be ‘on’ all the time. If we’re out of sync with what’s happening online then aspects of our offline experiences become affected.Tonyvall (discuss • contribs) 16:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi thank you for your comment! Yeah I definitely agree that needing to keep up to date with current trends and slang and stuff is largely behind the pressure to stay "on" all the time. It's so fast moving that it's very easy to fall behind - a reason why advertisers find it hard to appeal to our generation using memes and Internet culture because by the time they make something using a trend of some description, we've moved on to the next thing, and a joke from just last month seems outdated and lame. Like, the emoji movie coming out soon doesn't appeal to anyone who uses emojis because they're not appealing to the ways we actually use them. Emojis aren't a novelty anymore and there's a whole set of rules of language for using them - like how the meaning of the smiley has changed to indicate irony like: "just love it when the bus is late :)". - Katienotcatriona (discuss • contribs) 16:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I find your post not only thoughtful and on point but also very well written. I have to admit it truly was a pleasure to read it. Firstly, I would like to draw on your argument that digital distraction is a matter of choice. It is quite refreshing as most people openly admit being the slaves of technology that are being forced to regularly check the newest updates and disturbing their workflow by scrolling down the Facebook page. You are, however, absolutely right. We are free to stay focused on our task without login into our social media accounts. But you need to admit that it often is hard not to escape into watching cat videos while you're tired of writing another essay. Just to be clear, cat videos are for me a metaphor for watching anything distractive, enhancing and irrelevant. Don't you think that there is disturbing sense of gratification coming from login on your Facebook? I choose not to turn on a sound for my Facebook notifications or messages. I check them when I want, at least that's what I tell myself. In reality, I end up checking my Facebook even more often just in case someone send me something important.

I was lucky (?) enough to grow up in the era free from smartphones and omnipresence of social media. I spent my childhood without Facebook, Twitter and Instagram and looking at it from current perspective I have to admit that accessing information was much more difficult. I remember how challenging was researching topics for school project. Going through paper version of Encyclopedias, magazines and books would take hours but my knowledge would get more grounded. There is perhaps a lot of true in the statement that in digitalized world possessing the knowledge looses its importance and what counts is ability to skillfully find this knowledge. However, in terms of social life my social media - free childhood was rather fulfilling. I had no pressure of staying on track with the sea of various information we are forced to deal with now.

Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 20:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you Paulina, that's so kind of you! Thank you for your comment, I do the same with the Facebook notifications, I just check them when I feel like going on Facebook. My childhood was social media free too, I think most of the big social media sites started when I was in primary school but I don't think they started getting popular till I was in high school anyway. Some of my friends had Bebo when we were about 10 (even though you were supposed to be 13 to join! omg!), but I wasn't really interested, I was more concerned with watching cartoons and playing on my gameboy - which is still using technology but solitarily.


 * I agree that having a social media free childhood is a good thing, as you said, you shouldn't have to worry about the sort of problems that come with social media when you're a kid! I also agree about what you said about the ability to find the knowledge online - it can be really difficult to streamline searches to get what you need, just searching general topics can give up a lot of information but it'll be too broad. Computer literacy is definitely a skill - and one that needs to be maintained because technology moves so fast. - Katienotcatriona (discuss • contribs) 20:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

&#8593; Back to top

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibooks Project Reflective Account
This project is definitely unlike anything else we have done on this course. I quite enjoyed doing these exercises, it was interesting to reflect on my own engagement with digital media and seeing how other people's experience was similar or different to mine. I liked this because it brought the things we were learning into my frame of reference and made it relevant to me. Media is such a big part of our lives but sometimes when we're studying it we don't get to think about how we actually engage with it. I like that the cultural studies approach is a bit more empirical and less theoretical. The comments continued this as we were able to take the discussion in our own direction and gave us more freedom outside of the brief. On the downside, at times it did seem a bit too vague and sometimes I was worried I was going off topic.

I also quite liked learning how to use Wikibooks. The formatting of text reminds me of the forums I used to use when I was younger, so I found it quite easy to pick up the Wiki markup, even though it's unlike the platforms I use now. It was also interesting to find out about the whole Wiki culture and how there is a whole community involved with producing content on Wiki*media.

The group project I found more difficult. It was hard to keep up with the discussion page while discussing face-to-face with my group. I found it so much easier to just discuss face-to-face because it was a faster exchange of thoughts and development of ideas, compared to on the discussion page where it would take more time to work things through. I understand that the point was to help us understand the way Wiki*media work, but I just found that it wasn't really for me and didn't suit my way of working. Also, as there was so many people on the book, the discussion page quickly built up full of many different conversations and it was hard to keep track of everything.

The topic for my project was 'Privacy in the Digital Age' which I found interesting but because it was such a broad topic it was difficult for me to pick something to write about, especially when everyone else seemed to be getting on with it fine and coming up with lots of ideas. However, it was also quite comforting that when I shared that I was finding it difficult on the page, others replied saying that they felt the same way.

Furthermore, I found it hard to bring references into what I've been writing. In the exercises the briefs seemed to direct us to talking about our own experiences so I found it hard to find writings that directly applied. It was more useful to me to use the readings as a starting point to understand the main concepts and then I could form a few points from things I found interesting that I wanted to talk about but there wasn't really anything I wanted to reference directly. Meanwhile in the project I was able to use academic references because we were writing neutrally and for informational purposes, rather than discussing our own opinions and experiences. So even though I feel I have got value out of the readings, I feel like it isn't evidenced as much as it would have been in an essay. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - it's just different from what I'm used to.

I think I might have got more out of it if the project had been in smaller groups. I feel that I worked well with my group from my lab but I found the whole page quite overwhelming. I understand that it was set up so that we would have to collaborate with the other groups but I don't think it was really worked for my preferred way of working. I do understand how it was supposed to help us understand the collaborative nature of Wiki*media and it did help me understand it, but one of the things I've also learnt is that I personally didn't enjoy it: I found it overwhelming over such a short period over time. I did like how engagement was an important part of it but I ended up feeling like I had to be constantly thinking about the project... always 'on' if you will. I think I would have preferred doing a few, short group collaboration entries akin to the exercises which didn't feel so daunting. However, it was interesting to see the big book page grow with so many people contributing and working through to understand how collective intelligence works in practice.

Katienotcatriona (discuss • contribs) 22:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

&#8593; Back to top

Comments
Hey I agree with you entirely about the wikibooks project being daunting and the discussion pages being chaotic to say the least. I found that once we got into the flow of things the project worked out really well, however, I don't think we got into the flow that much until towards the end. Since we were in such a large group it was hard to communicate to so many people all our different thoughts and ideas and the discussion page became very cluttered very quickly. We maybe could have benefited from more time working on the project, or, like you suggested, smaller groups working on smaller projects like these wiki exercises. I've both enjoyed and loathed my time on Wikibooks, there's been a few things I've found interesting and others I've found particularly tedious, but this assignment has provided me with insight into the way Wikimedias work which is what it was supposed to do. I also agree with you a lot about the difficulty of referencing. I found that through our wiki exercises we talked more about our own experiences and, like you said, it was hard to reference because of this. I found I referenced a little more in the book itself but still not nearly as much as I would have had I been writing an essay. Tinytalia (discuss • contribs) 15:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey, thank you for your comment! Yeah I agree, it took us a while to get into the flow - mainly just getting used to the format of how to have conversations and understanding what we were to post on the main book etc. but yeah I also agree that it worked out well in the end! Also, I know what you mean about enjoying and loathing your time on Wikibooks, it definitely has had benefits and limitations. - Katienotcatriona (discuss • contribs) 19:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

&#8593; Back to top

Formatting text
I'm just going to list all the formatting stuff I've learnt on this Wiki Adventure so far.

To underline put and  without the spaces on either side of the text you want underlined.

For italics put 2 apostrophes (') on each side of the text.

For bold text it's 3 single apostrophes on each side.


 * To make a bullet point, put an asterisk symbol before the first character of your sentence.

To create one of these funky grey boxes, just put a single space before the first character of the sentence.


 * To indent, turn the first character of your sentence into a smiley face, i.e. put one colon before the first character.
 * To indent further, turn that face into a 4 eyed alien (add another colon).
 * And so on.

To add a table, select the table icon at the top of the edit text box (where you type into), choose how many columns and rows you want on the pop up box and then add your text where it says "header text" for the headers, and "example" for the cells.

For headings add an equals sign (=) at the start and end of the text, one equals sign on each side is for the big section headings, 2 on each side is the level below that and so on. So "Wiki Markup" is a level 2 heading (2 ='s), "Formatting text" is level 3 (3 ='s) and "How to link" is level 4 (4 ='s).

If you do four dashes (-) in a row, you get a line, like the one below.

How to link
{ { Ping | username } } (without the spaces) is how you mention someone, obviously replacing "username" with their username.

To put in the "back to top" link: [ [ # top | &#8593 ; Back to top ] ] < / b r > (without spaces)
 * If you want to copy&paste the back to top thing, edit this section and you can copy it here: &#8593; Back to top

If you want to add a link to something like, a Wikipedia page, for example then you can click on the little chain link icon at the top of the edit text box and copy and past your link into the top form. Or, paste your link into text (full link, including the http:// or https:// bit at the start) then leave a space before typing the word you want the hyperlink to appear on and close it all of with those square brackets - [ ]

'''I've done an example of all of these formatting things so if you go into to edit this section then you can see how it looks in the text edit box. This is for my own record and I hope that others can find it helpful too. If there's anything you want to add, post it underneath!'''

Peace out, Wiki Lovers. - Katienotcatriona (discuss • contribs) 19:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

&#8593; Back to top

Comments
Katie, thank you for your post. I discovered the way for creating this 'funky box' you talk about by coincidence. I made it but had no idea how so thank you for explanation. It's very helpful and it so great that you want to share you knowledge with others. Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 11:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

&#8593; Back to top

Content (weighted 20%)
The introduction section here is a little brief, however it draws its strength from being well written, in an accessible language. In addition to this, very usefully, each section has been laid out in bullet point format, with a very brief summative sentence for each section. The sections themselves represent wide coverage of many of the main issues surrounding privacy in contemporary popular culture.

However, of particular use here – and very much a strength of the chapter as a whole, is the section that draws together the issues raised here, and applies these to other areas of the wikibook as a whole, explicitly making more of the platform than would otherwise have been, had the groups decided to write this chapter in isolation. To be clear, the execution of this section could have been better – greatly improved through more systematic use of interwiki links to draw attention to the specific pages, sections and issues from the various pages in the wikibook which you were commenting on. Another specific section here that could have been improved is the section on celebrity vlogging. Whereas it is true that there hasn’t been a lot written on this (yet – there is a growing interest in the scholarship, and we can expect much more appearing in the short term), it should have been acknowledged that the scholarship on celebrity culture as a whole is very well established, and that most of the issues raised in relation to YouTubers (e.g. “the price of fame”, privacy issues, and the implied “fair game” logic) are covered in existing debates on celebrity. All that said, the potential for this last section was recognised and other parts of it fully engaged with existing research in the field, and therefore is rewarded.

Structure-wise, the chapter seems to hang together fairly well – the definitions section at the beginning, whilst by no means exhaustive, gives the reader a sense of the subject matter under discussion early on, and also some useful working definitions of key terms used. Some typo errors and inconsistency of formatting appear dotted throughout, but these are not the norm for this chapter. Odd inclusion of bibliographical material of theorists, but no discussion or application their ideas in that section (especially in the case of Fuchs, where it lists a few of his research association and academic achievements. A little bit more joined-up work would have improved on this section enormously.

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 glossary is really useful – not quite exhaustive, but good for quick reference purposes. Use of interwiki links in here would have been useful. The references section again evidences research, reading and sharing of resources. Some of the formatting seems to go awry towards the end, so a little more joined-up thinking there would have been useful, but overall good.


 * 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


 * 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 portfolio was at the higher end of this grade band.


 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, featuring discriminating command of a good range of relevant materials and analyses
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material to a fairly wide degree
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument through 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);
 * evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections);
 * clear evidence of independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

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