User talk:LittleKatie101

Hi, this is little Katie's discussion page. I am using this to discuss, engage and research subjects as part of a class project. I will be looking at the differences in communication and reflection throughout the process.

LittleKatie101 (discuss • contribs) 13:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki #1
What makes a good wiki?

LittleKatie101 (discuss • contribs) 13:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Facebook, chat groups and pages allows 'in-the-moment' conversation and interaction with statuses, check ins and live videos. The feature to attach files is easy and quick that makes it possible to share ideas and work during group projects. In terms of collaborative work through blogs; guest posts are useful to contribute ideas and information following from the owner's content. The comment sections on social media sites are always easily accessible which is something that wikipedia is missing. Wikipedia has a more formal set up and does not opening invite people to discuss on the information filled site. Where as facebook and twitter rely on the way people express themselves, wiki uses facts and minimises the personal tone, a voice from it's content. Even if editing is done by someone, it is critically debated until a decision of it's worth is made.

Following this, wikipedia as a way to connect and engage collectively, has an anonymous feel to it as users are just a name on the screen-if found in the first place- and any way to relate to the user is non existence apart from possibly a shared knowledge of facts on a topic shown on wiki. Facebook was created with a person profile as it's main feature as a way to connect people and encourage engagement and with photo sharing, people are able to portray a persona. There is further interaction possibilities with 'likes' on facebook and twitter which wikipedia does not use. Wikipedia's users are not looking for a way to portray personality or collect likes, they just are looking for a way to engage in knowledge and share it on a platform. However there are more limitations on the things that can be written on wikipedia as it has to have value where as facebook, is more freely used. Although, both have rules and regulations and options to report fi the words seem untrue, racist and offensive.

Privacy is another issue in difference between wikipedia and social media. Facebook, Instagram and twitter have ways of regulating who can see what you post. However what is written on wikipedia is open to the world wide web and is accessible for all. Not only are the pages of content open to everyone but the 'user pages' are also available for everyone to see. It is not advisable to share valuable or personal information on it where as you are actually encourages on social media to share where you work, your relationship and place of residence.

LittleKatie101 (discuss • contribs) 22:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The way the editing system works on Wikipedia, with edits being scrutinised greatly before they are accepted as a change, seems to work well for the purpose of this site. It makes the information we consume here more reliable if it has had to undergo such scrutiny, whereas on Facebook or Twitter and even on blogs the information given may not be as accurate. Being most familiar with social networking sites alone, Wikipedia appears complicated to me, but the differences in the way it is used and contributed to make it an interesting comparison to what I already know. --Tinytalia (discuss • contribs) 12:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with you in that I think the way Wikibooks is formatted is a bit trickier than what we're used to with Facebook, but arguably the format is more advanced than the early versions of communication on the Internet. As we have become accustomed to the Facebook interface, a lot of Wiki users might see it as limiting in terms of what you can do with font sizes, typeface (bold/italic/underlining) and linking more than one external page on a post. I like that you highlight the differences between the personal space of Facebook with the profile pictures and the more formal Wikipedia model. Do you think that in order to encourage more people to use Wikibooks it needs to be more user-friendly? EmilymDaniel (discuss • contribs) 00:33, 10 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, you state that Wikipedia has a more formal set up and does not opening invite people to discuss on the information filled site. I find this important, as you are attempting to address qualitative differences between platforms, but also, factually disputable - especially for a platform whose designs explicitly builds in Talk and Discussion pages! It may seem like semantics, but actually, this might be seen as an opportunity for you to think about those different qualities and how they fit in with assumptions.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – there was only one (you are required to post comments to two other users, therefore in assessed conditions this would affect your mark significantly) and what is there is too 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. Here is the comment in full: The accessibility to 'talk' on wikipedia, although as you said is there, is more complex as you have to know what you search for and want to talk about where as facebook and twitter hands in to you on your home page through algorithms and likes. There are two issues here, both worthy of discussion, but you haven't engaged with either - knowing what to search for is an important literacy issue, and being handed over to algorithms is in itself problematic (extremely interesting! but YOU need to build the ideas here!)

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)