User talk:KerryFromThePub-Round2

This is the discussion page for KerryFromThePub-Round2 (discuss • contribs) 16:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1 - What Makes a Good Wiki?
The internet and social media in particular are great places for people to share and exchange ideas, but from my own experience of using certain online platforms there are some noticeable qualitative differences in information sharing and limitations depending on which site you are using.

Facebook

Facebook is great as it allows users to join discussion groups, most of which have a specific theme i.e. religion or politics. These groups can be very useful for discussing and debating ideas, but as they are moderated by other users the rules of each group can differ completely (as long as they are within Facebook's terms and community standards). This means that moderators have the ability to delete specific comments and even ban members for whatever reason they see fit. More often than not you find that moderators do tend to abuse this power, meaning that alternative viewpoints and ideas are completely shut down, which creates an echo-chamber of ideas. Users also have the freedom to comment almost whatever they want on or in response to a post or comment, meaning that the quality of information being shared isn't always of a very high standard (whether it be incorrect, or just plain ad hominem attacks). For these reasons, I think Facebook is limited in terms of qualitative information sharing.

Twitter

Due to Twitter's 140 character limit, it is quite difficult for users to properly articulate and present their arguments or opinions, and for this reason a lot users resort to sharing news articles instead. The problem with this is that a lot of these articles are 'fake news' (incorrect or misinterpreted information), and often users will share these articles without checking if they are factually correct. Not only does this spread incorrect information, but it also promotes a sense of laziness and discourages people from doing valid research. Twitter is also infamous for banning users who have 'controversial' views (Milo Yiannopoulos, for example, who was banned for making a joke about an actress), which again promotes the echo-chamber culture and discourages people from having different opinions to what is seen as the norm.

Wikipedia

Wikipedia differs from other social network platforms in that it has quite strict regulations on information sharing, which are put in place to unsure that the information shared is as factual and correct as possible. Wiki also differs in that it was created with the intention of being a platform for learning, although many people use Twitter and Facebook in a similar way, they don't have a strict regulations on what type of information can be shared (and rightly so). Wikipedia is also constantly kept up to date, and it allows users to edit other people's articles if they believe the information presented needs amending (again, this is usually approved by moderators meaning that the quality of information is usually of a higher standard than that of Facebook and Twitter). Wikipedia also doesn't tolerate 'trolls' like Facebook and Twitter do, meaning that there are far less pointless or incorrect arguments or pieces of information shared on the site, and it also makes it easier for users to find information as they don't have to filter out the nonsense that online trolls can sometimes create.

In conclusion, social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook are great for sharing ideas and discussion, but have their aforementioned qualitative limitations, whereas Wikipedia has far fewer qualitative limitations as it has stricter regulations in order to serve the purpose of sharing information.

KerryFromThePub-Round2 (discuss • contribs) 11:57, 8 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.


 * 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 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, perhaps 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. You have already started exploring this. In addition, I think that engaging with some of the challenges associated with algorithm bias, hidden data and relative transparency, and other issues associated with privacy might be directions in which to build upon this foundation work here.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – you were required comment on two other users' posts, so in an assessment context you would have lost marks - however the one you've posted is fairly good, if a little brief. Remember that the comments are "worth" as much as posts themselves. The reason for this is not only to help encourage discussion (a key element of wiki collaboration!) but also to get you to reflect upon your own work. This can all, of course be used to fuel ideas that might form part of your project work. I like that you have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!) and also that you are beginning to discuss 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).

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 17:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2 - Visibility and Data Trails
In today's society we've formed a cultural requirement for social media, however most people seem unable to recognise the consequences of sharing your information online. Different sites, such as Facebook, utilise information gathering in order to increase their profits, whereas sites such as Steam and Origin rely on other methods to maximise their financial gain. On the other hand, Wikipedia is ran as a non-profit organisation that relies on voluntary donations in order to sustain itself. From my personal experience of using each of these sites, there are noticeable differences in the amount of information they encourage or require you to share based on whether or not they want to profit from selling your information.

 Facebook 

A lot of Facebook users, myself included, share information such as their email address, phone number, as well as their location and interests, and many users use it as a way of creating a false (or idealised) self-narrative, making themselves appear more successful or happy online than they may actually be. Facebook takes advantage of our culture’s desire to present our best possible selves to the rest of society, and draws out these pieces of information from its’ users so that they can sell it on to 3rd parties for profit. Many users are not aware that they permit Facebook to sell this information as more often than not people are guilty of not reading the Terms and Conditions before they agree to them, and if you wish to use Facebook you have no choice but to accept and allow the site to do this. Facebook also makes use of cookies and targeted advertisement, this shows that users clearly leave a data-trail online as the site tracks your interests and displays relevant adverts (this is another way of Facebook making profit, and another reason why it is free for people to use).

 Steam/Origin 

From my experience of using gaming apps like Origin and Steam, they require/encourage users to share far less personal information than social media sites like Facebook. This is because they are market places that make their profits from selling games instead of user’s information. Origin and Steam do display adverts, and like Facebook they use cookies to track users’ interests and activity online, but they can almost be forgiven for this as it is such a common and effective tactic to draw in customers, and again they are not using your information against you, they’re simply trying to advertise products that you will likely be interested in buying.

 Wikipedia 

As mentioned before, Wikipedia is a non-profit organisation which is sustained through voluntary user donations. Because of this, Wikipedia does not have to use advertisements or user information distribution tactics in order to turn a profit. Like Origin and Steam, Wikipedia therefore does not overly encourage users to share personal information, and in a lot of cases they actually discourage it (i.e. if a user creates a personal article about themselves it is usually deleted because of Wiki’s ‘neutral view point’ policy).

In conclusion, how much information user’s share on certain social media sites is largely influenced by how much each site encourages them to share, based on whether or not they can make a profit from distributing the user’s ‘private’ information.

KerryFromThePub-Round2 (discuss • contribs) 19:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)