User talk:Lewislbonar

Hello, my name is Lewis Bonar. I am a 2nd year student currently studying Business and Marketing. Lewislbonar (discuss • contribs) 14:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: What Makes a Good Wiki?
My experience of using social media platforms dates back to the early days of MySpace and Bebo, which seems like a distant memory in our current social climate. The progression and evolution of the new digital age has enabled me to pursue a career in the field. My career interests are within social and digital marketing. These interest have allowed for me to experience the various different types social media platforms and how they differ. I am always looking for new creative ways to work on social media and I get the chance to do this through working with small independent businesses.

The difference between social engagement and wiki engagement from my own experience is very different but that can depend on what one is using the platforms for. The idea behind both platforms is the fast and easy design which is why engagement can become addictive. For example, hyperlinking within a wiki site allows for the user to easily get lost following the links of information provided, use Wikipedia as the example. Just like social media, the user friendly applications allow for constant engagement. Although the concept is similar the differences between a wiki and social media engagement differ due to the people who are consuming them.

Using wiki*edia is unique, anyone who can read the page had the ability to edit that wiki page. It’s a discussion medium, a tool for collaboration. When you compare this to social media engagement the differences are very similar in the sense that social media is also a tool used for discussion and collaboration. However, the differences from my own experience is that social media is used as a more formal way to collaborate, due to the large scale popularity. Lewislbonar (discuss • contribs) 18:01, 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 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 quite descriptive, even if well written. 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. Also referring to key reading and research on your discussed themes would help enormously.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – there was only one of these, and a little brief (you were required to comment on two posts - so if assessed this would have reduced your mark considerably). 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.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 14:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Lewis, I agree with your view that wikipedia and the likes should be seen as a collaborative form of online media. More people should be taking advantage of this feature and contributing to the learning and engagement of millions of users - be this by sharing new ideas, questioning information you may not be sure of etc. To add to your point, I think the key to getting more user involved in online contribution this way may be down to the changing of the user interface. Making it more accessible to first time users and to people who have used the site for years could open up new roads of communication for both parties. Helizacarr (discuss • contribs) 22:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

My Online Presence
I would say that I have quite a big social presence online. However, I am certainly not as active as others. My visibility online covers nearly all the social media platforms which, ranges from the conventional sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to the more unconventional like, Quora and this could include my own personal social media innovation (which cannot be discussed at this early stage) but it is work in progress. Anyway, I am pretty much using all the social media apps that are available to me. Although the main reason for my activity online is due to the career I am currently pursuing, which requires me to be knowledgeable within the context of social media.

The information that is available to view online is only really available to my friends and family. I could be regarded as inactive on the mainstream social media sites because I do not choose to post unnecessary statuses. I prefer to use social media as a form of news feed, take Twitter as an example. I can follow influential individuals and political leaders along with businesses which allows for me to keep up to date with current affairs. If I find myself sharing on social media it tends to be about memories. I like to be creative when posting on social media and I enjoy following fashion icons and the latest trends and use Instagram and Tumblr to get this information. This content also gives me inspiration for ideas, not only with the latest fashion but also inspires me with my work on social media. I work for a premium clothing boutique and I do all the social/digital media marketing for them, where I try and grow the companies social presence. The social media platforms such as Instagram and Tumblr allow for me to generate new ideas and new innovative ways of displaying content.

Privacy Online
Furthermore, I have been using LinkedIn for a number of years and I allow for my profile to be easily accessible to the business world. The reason for that is, to grow my connections and network with potential employers and business minded individuals. Moreover, on LinkedIn I uploaded my CV and then later found out that Slideshare had published this online without me knowing. Which brings me on to the point about the information we share being under your control. In my opinion, if you want to be hidden online the functions are there to do so. Although, I understand that not everyone is aware of these functions with privacy control etc. but I believe that if you wish to be control your social media content, you can to a certain extent. Lewislbonar (discuss • contribs) 10:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with the Information Overload
Personally speaking, I don't have an issue with dealing with the many different forms of information at our disposal. The reason for this is simple, I can control my access to this information. The temptation is never enough for me to get distracted. However, there are some distractions that can get to me but this is not social media and I deal with these distractions by being active, either physically or mentally. I suppose I think of it as an 'old school' mentality when it comes to consuming unnecessary information. Although, this mentality allows for me to access the information online that I require to consume and neglect the information that could potentially distract me. Believe it or not, I am human. I do get distracted but my point here is that I don't allow myself to get distracted in unnecessary information and instead I use it for when I need it.

Why? Well I like to think I have a life? Sarcasm of course. But seriously this could well be my answer. I have a circle of friends/social life plus my sporting commitments which allow me to get distracted from the information overload. So I deal with information overload by restricting my access. Sounds simple enough right? Although I know fine well that it isn't. Because I am fortunate enough to be surrounded by people, friends and family who have, in my opinion an addiction to getting distracted by the overload of information. So I am well aware of the problems that can occur. Although, is it really a problem? In the grand scheme of things. I suppose that depends on a number of different factors, which I am sure we could all discuss in great detail.

Contributing Factors? Well the most prominent factor would be my studies. In order for me to get through the required workload I can't allow for myself to get distracted. This is not just because of the workload we have at this stage. It is more to do with my very busy lifestyle. My studies is my number one priority of course but I also partake in two part-time jobs (one of those online based) and I also play a part in the universities football scholarship programme, which requires a lot of commitment. These factors play a important part in my reasoning behind my consumption of information.

Workflow? Like I previously mentioned, my workflow requires a lot of quality time as I do not have the live the life of a stereotypical student. But at this stage I seem to have coped, I think. The group work will be interesting as its something new and at this stage I am unsure how it is all going to work. Lewislbonar (discuss • contribs) 19:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments
. Very interesting read! I would like to say I have a life, but unfortunately I generally find myself procrastinating online whenever I have spare time.

Although you generally seem to be very focused online, have you found the Wikibooks project to be difficult to keep from distraction, due to its completely online nature? Although we generally attribute 'distractions' online with news sites or entertainment articles, Wikipedia and its associated sites are also easy to get lost in due to the blending of topics with hyperlinks too related pages. I have definitely noticed that 'information overload' seems to have taken over all aspects of the internet, which can be seen even when searching for sources for assignments and coursework.

Hopefully I'll be able to focus on the important sources and not get so caught up in distraction with the Wikibooks Project! Dcunningham1017 (discuss • contribs) 00:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lewislbonar,

I wish I had your “old school” mentality for dealing with distractions. I often find myself procrastinating online reading news with topics that I do not even care about, it is difficult to stop because there is always more information being added and I went to be kept informed. Do you think if you had a different lifestyle you would find it easier to get distracted? Shakeygravesbeattie (discuss • contribs) 13:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibooks Project Reflective Account
After a delayed start due to a misunderstanding, the project planning was underway. The last scheduled computer lab provided our group with the necessary face to face interaction required to structure our project and discuss the dedicated roles for each member of the group. The main method of communication after the face to face interaction was mainly through Facebook Messenger and the wiki discussion page. Although, each member of the group was delegated with their specific section to focus on so the conversations out with the discussion page was at a minimum. Overall, the task was made pretty straightforward and structured after the latest face to face meeting, we all knew what we had to do and when it was due to be completed.

Engagement with the group as a whole was a little more complex. This was due to the overload of information and the sheer size of the wiki group, which was the largest collaboration (Living in a Connected World/Privacy in the Digital Age). However, the discussion page was well structured and everyone in the group was very helpful when sharing resources, ideas, links and feedback. The layout of the discussion page was easy to follow but when all the information started to appear it made for a confusion read or maybe best described as, not being easy to follow. Trying to follow a series of conversations is difficult and often find myself missing out on conversations due to not being sent a 'ping' or a notification. I also find myself asking questions without response and in return I have also not answered questions on my page due to simply not knowing.



Critically analysing my own contribution to the project:

My input like most was specific to one subject area, 'location services on apps' which I found rather interesting. From the information I gathered from the external reading I found out a lot of stuff that was new to me. The information that is available via location services in our current digital age is far more advanced than I could ever have imagined. After I completed my section and contributed in some discussion in the planning page, I made a suggestion that we set a deadline for the book entries. The idea was that we set a time for the last of the entries in order to give the group enough time to finalise book for submission. The other users were in agreement from the feedback that it received. Overall, in the timeframe I set myself I think my contribution was more than adequate.

The wiki project as a whole was a new experience and one that has opened my opinion on the 'wikisphere'. I always wanted to get to know and understand the workings behind wiki entries and now that I do I will certainly appreciate the platform a lot more.

Lewislbonar (discuss • contribs) 10:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I totally agree with you concerning the confusion in conversations, I also had this issue. First, when I started the Wiki project I wasn’t always looking for new comments on the discussion page. When I wanted to work on it I was surprised to see a long conversation, I think we get used to have notifications of social network account in our mobile phone this is why it was quite difficult for me to keep up the pace. After few days, I tried to connect to myself as much as possible to read, ask and answer questions so I will not be lag behind. --Sarahsarah22 (discuss • contribs) 11:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

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


 * 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