User talk:Lucia.notifications5

This account has been created to contribute in a group project.

Wiki Exercise #1/ Online Visibility and Footprint
I believe that my online engagement has shaped the ways in which I portray myself and interact with others. My use of social media like Twitter and Instagram on a daily basis demonstrates how new digital technologies enhance the Always-On lifestyle mentioned by Boyd (2012). Although not checking my phone constantly, my friends and family can still always contact me. This shows how my online presence is continuously active regardless of my actions. Turkle's (2011) comparison of humans and cyborgs illustrates this constant connectivity.

First, I thought of myself as a passive consumer of the online content, as I do not post that often on Instagram and Twitter. However, reading Shirky (2011) and his emphasis on the different ways in which users can contribute online, I realised that my minimal actions affect the online community. Sharing content aggregates data to the online platforms, making my Instagram likes and Twitter retweets part of the user-generated data that shapes my identity.

During my presence on Twitter, I have seen many social movements taking place online. In this regard, the online world can be seen as a "place for hope" (Turkle, 2011: 153) in which the users feel supported. The internet has helped to visualise issues of our daily lives, and the story-times of Youtubers or confessions on Twitter have definitely helped me realise that my problems are shared by others. One example I could think of is the #MeToo movement that started on Twitter years ago. This helped to build a supportive community for sexual assault victims, as well as raising awareness on the topic. I did not participate in these movements by posting any tweets, but my support through likes and retweets can show anyone my political views, opinions, and interests, extending my online presence.

I am aware that all the data I have generated since I created my first Gmail account in 2012 is still somewhere online. But I try not to think much about the ridiculous pictures I posted on Facebook years ago or my chats on games like Habbo. However, my actions remain a constant chip on my shoulders; if I google myself I can still find a really bad and embarrassing meme that my friend and I posted in 2013. This shows how your online presence stays on the internet forever.

Furthermore, the vertical data integration of the hierarchical social media companies creates a series of concerns regarding my online visibility (Zelenkauskaite, 2016). It is true that social platforms such as Facebook and Instagram inform you of how part of your data is being collected. This storage of user-generated data is supposed to enhance your experience online. However, it can also signify a lack of privacy, since it is used for commercial purposes most of the times. My likes shape the adverts I get on my social media, making me aware of how much these companies know about my interests. I talked with my flatmate about going vegan and the next day I got a vegan online shop ad on my Instagram feed. Another example that many users discussed, is Snapmaps. Although having the option of not showing your location to your friends, the app still tracks where you are.

Overall, I would argue that despite our attempts of avoiding to be too visible online, all of our small interactions generate an online footprint of our identity. Some of this data might not be visible to our friends, but the companies still have access to it, showing the lack of control users can have on social media. This could lead to dangerous situations if the users' information was to be hacked. --Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 04:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Instructor 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 the making criteria as outlined in the relevant documentation, 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 work is at the lower end of this grade band (though still excellent!). 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 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, making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would have made a considerable difference. Also, please be aware of any instructions regarding word limit!


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are especially good. 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 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) 11:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2/ To what extent are my online and offline identities aligned?
The development of the platforms and the importance they have acquired in our everyday basis carries several implications on the way we portray ourselves online and how that affects our identity. Boyd (2012) emphasises how the "Always On" lifestyle makes the users seek to remain connected causing a cultural lock-in in which they are "assumed" to be online. In this context, Turkle (2011) explains that living on the Net "full-time" can lead to a life-mix, a "mash-up of what you have on- ad offline" (160), complicating the issues regarding the sense of our identities.

The online world can seem to be a democratic space in which the users “loosen up, feel more uninhibited, and express themselves more openly” (p. 96). The perceived invisibility and the asynchronicity experimented by the users help a detachment from the conditions that rule the real world, enhancing certain behaviors online. As Suler (2015) explains the invisibility can make them have the courage to do something they would not normally do, whereas the asynchronicity allows the users to have a controlled sense of what they share.

During my first years in the online community, I remember acting online as I would with my closest friends, oversharing and behaving in a mostly extroverted manner. The lack of visual contact, as Lapidot-Lefler and Barak (2012) studied, helps the users believe that they are not being observed, which definitely helped my 10-year-old self to have no self-boundaries in the online world. Another example I can remember is playing online games such as Club Penguin, in which the avatars made the real identities of the players anonymous. This can exacerbate the online disinhibition, as compared to other social media there is a social setting that differs from real life. However, it can also cause toxic disinhibition (Suler, 2015: 97), making these games and online platforms perfect spaces for bullying people with a lack of real consequences.

In this regard, trolling and cyberbullying have deconstructed "the myth of an online-offline divide" (Singh, 2018: 118). If well some gaming platforms can have serious consequences in this respect, social media demonstrates the influence that online comments can have in real life, in some cases restricting our online presence. This is where the notion of impression management comes into play. Ibrahim (2018) states that "reciprocity and gaze plays a significant role in ascribing a social value to our presence" which can cause a desire for sociability and fitting in. Our entrance into the social world leads us to assume a certain role in society, or as Althusser (1868) explained we have been interpellated into these roles. Consequently, the photos we post on Instagram and Facebook show "a version of ourselves we hope to be" (Mendelson and Papacharissi, 2010: 255). This could be interpreted as a "false" persona, a "performance" of a role that is considered a false identity.

Overall, I think that as well as the on- and offline worlds collide, both of our disinhibitions and inhibitions online form part of our identity. The desire to belong in the social networks and the attempt to fit in does not represent a "fake" you. At the same time, being more open online does not necessarily imply that when being introverted in person you are not being yourself. Identity is constructed differently through all of our experiences and interactions and therefore I consider that my online and offline identities, although being different, are still the same and part of me.

Wiki Exercise #3/ Annotated Bibliography Entry part B
'''Jenkins, H., Ford, S. & Green, J. (2013). Where Web 2.0 Went Wrong. In Spreadable media: creating value and meaning in a networked culture (pp. 47-84). London: New York University.'''

In this chapter, the authors analyse how Web 2.0’s participatory culture has shaped the relationship between the platforms’ owners and users. Introducing the concept of moral economy, the conflicting interests of sharing free content and the aim of obtaining economic profit are explained as elements disrupting the social contract implicit in Web 2.0. The aim of the chapter is to discuss the ethical issues arising from the establishment of the business model in Web 2.0 platforms. The arguments are illustrated with a wide range of examples and academic research. The text will be useful in my research about the internal issues of the platforms and the future of Web 2.0. The main limitation of the chapter is its date of publication. In the light of the development of the internet, the study of these interactions and their possible outcomes need to be further researched considering the most recently created platforms.

Wiki Exercise #4/ Collaborative Essay Critical Evaluation – What ARE Wikis?
The users' involvement after Web 2.0 facilitated collaborative work online. In this case, Wikis can be defined as “people-led practices of knowledge” (Lister et al., 2009: 206), which has also been named 'Folksonomy'. This had been highlighted by O'Reilly's (2005) claims about the innovations of Web 2.0 where he described users as co-workers, not consumers, contributing to an online "blogosphere." In fact, Wikipedia highlights this accessibility through which anyone can use, edit, and distribute the aggregated content.

During my first days of using Wikibooks, I realised how easy it is to participate. It did not feel like a hierarchy; as all of the users could engage with the project adding information or arguing on the topics making the platform seem an 'online democracy'. The open editing made it possible for the collaborators to discuss with one another, an action that authors like Shirky (2011) consider highly positive in the building of a cognitive surplus. Considering Web 2.0, Gauntlett (2018) described a collaborative "shared space" in which individuals "come together" instead of "tending their own gardens" (20). In contrast to this description, our project was more individualistic with most users focusing on only one section. Most scholars mention terms like passion and will that come within voluntary work, notions that can maybe vary in the context of (for the most part) compulsory University work. Jenkins et al. (2013) elaborate on this idea of online labor, indicating a more complicated distinction of unpaid work between alienated and voluntary labor. Wikipedia does not pay its co-workers, which leads to an enhancement of the voluntary work which users want to do to create a public good.

Furthermore, Wikis can be considered online communities that resemble the social world (Myers, 2010: 21). A group of people working together, interacting with each other, with the intention of sharing valuable information with the rest of the users. In spite of the freedom allowed in Wikis due to their detachment from restricting conditions of our real lives, there are certain limitations. Myers (2010) compares Wikis to real-life social interactions, demonstrating the similarities between the two. Civility and neutrality are two of the | five pillars of Wikipedia, which try to avoid conflicts between the editors and enhances respect. In this way, acts of vandalism are quickly reversed by bots. Moreover, the status of the Administrators compared to the power of normal users can be regarded as an online version of hierarchy. All of these aspects remind us that the Wikis are still part of a social construct organised by rules that allow cohabiting a shared online space.

Overall, Wikis are the perfect example of how the Web can provide a space where users can voluntarily and collectively create a cognitive surplus that serves a civic purpose in society. However, some of the restrictions of the social world still prevail in the online communications which can both limit and organise the production of this user-generated content.

Comment section
Hi, if there is any feedback or any comments you would like to leave about the exercise leave them down below. I would be very happy to read your thoughts on the topic. --Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 23:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1/ Online visibility and footprint
Dear Lucia.notifications5

The discussion presented by you on Wikibooks was very clear and concise. The arguments you formulated were well constructed. In particularly the discussion on your perception of Twitter’s as a “place for hope” were movements and individuals share opinions and perhaps changing the minds of others. I must state that I am not a Twitter supporter, but I do agree with the rise of #Me too. Additionally, had it not been for Twitter and the internet #Me Too would not have been recognised, thus insinuated the importance of online in informing people.

Furthermore, your personal experiences on googling yourself I personally could resonate with. It was also great that you managed to insert references to back-up arguments with relevant texts exemplifying core skills in Wikibooks.

Overall your ability to assert prominent topics online were new discussions emerge, such as #Me Too shows how up-to date you are online. Organisation often take advantage of information individuals provide, so when you expressed Facebook and Instagram on the notion of privacy, the ‘reaction features’ sprung to mind if you would like to explore further. In an article police Belgium warned about the use of this features. All in all I think that you provided and excellent first Wikibooks exercises which was very informative.

In the comments reference list is a link to the Belgium police article on reaction features. Thegirlwiththewhitebrother (discuss • contribs) 02:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Good morning, thank you very much for your feedback! I tried to figure out how to work on Wikibooks, so thank you for appreciating my effort :) I agree that social media can provide information in a large scale, and I think that is why it is so amazing and dangerous at the same time. Finally, I found the article you sent me on Facebook's 'reaction features' to be really interesting, you should definitely share it in the general group discussion so that everyone can check it out! After all, all of us are somehow connected to social media. I think that the article clearly demonstrates how big companies use our interactions on the platforms for economic benefits, which could lead to ethical debates. It is very important that we are aware of the implications being online has. Thank you! --Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 11:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Lucia, after reading your comment on my exercise I would like to return the favour! I can very much relate to the feeling of always being 'connected' or 'networked' as Sherry Turkle (2011) calls it, even when we are not actively choosing to be online. Compared to the amount of content other people post to their social media on a daily basis, I too never really thought of myself as a contributor, but as you mention, even small contributions can make a big difference. I also really like how you talk about finding an old meme of yourself and that you simply accept the fact that it, as you put it, 'will stay on the internet forever'. I think it is very important to be aware of the implications that posting something online has. You also talk about how social media can be used for great things such as the #MeToo movement and how it can be a place for people to relate to other people and their experiences. Like you, I never really actively participated in any of the big social movements on social media. You mention that even liking or re-posting a tweet can help a message to spread and therefore support the cause. While I think that is true to a certain extent, I also think that this mindset can potentially lead to people feeling like they are doing 'enough'. What I mean by that is, that instead of participating in e.g. the women's march oneself, one could feel like one has done enough to support the cause by simply posting a tweet or liking a related picture. Or instead of donating to a charity one shares the post that asks people to donate and feels like they have done their part. Overall, I think you have gone into a lot of very interesting and important points regarding visibility and online presence and I enjoyed reading through your exercise.

JuliaWearsAScarf (discuss • contribs) 08:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)JuliaWearsAScarfJuliaWearsAScarf (discuss • contribs) 08:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you very much for reading my exercise! As you said, I agree that it is very important to be aware of the implications of posting online, mainly nowadays when even kids can get their own Instagram accounts and explore the internet. Making the internet a safe space should be a priority since it is such a big tool that almost anyone can use.
 * On the other hand, your mention of how our online interactions can sometimes mislead us into thinking we are doing enough is a really interesting point. I guess it makes me aware of how we sometimes think of the online platforms as the real world, instead of taking some action. Although the internet can be great to spread a message, we should not assume that is the only thing we can do for society. The lack of distinction between online and off-line that is being so greatly discussed by many scholars does definitely have many complications in our lives. Even when socialising, although not my case, some people would rather stay at home and text their friends instead of actually meeting them face-to-face. This can have serious consequences in our mental health, I think.
 * Overall, I am really thankful for your feedback and the points you mentioned are definitely worth discussing. I will take them into account the next time I post these exercises!--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 11:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello ! Did you get the notification for this message?--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 12:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I did thanks!

Wiki Exercise #2/ To what extent are my online and offline identities aligned?
Very interesting take on how offline and online identities align. I believe that you have perfectly been able to sum up the relation between the two by saying that they "collide". Showing your own experiences by discussing your own first years on the internet helps to back up the points you make of people oversharing on the internet, in this light I can see that your exercise is well thought out, well researched and well written JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 13:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC).
 * Thank you for your feedback, really encouraging!--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 12:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You display a very wide range of resources in this piece and this is a strong foundation for a critical discussion on the distance that can be formed between a person's online and offline identity, or identities. You link the academic concepts well to examples of both social media/websites and your own experiences from your childhood playing online games with your friends. I would have like to see more on how you can seen your own online identity may have changed, because I would like to think that you in the present have found 'self-boundaries', as you call them. That aside you present a highly effective look on the way that people present themselves and do so with many clear sources of research to go with it, I look forward to seeing your next work - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 17:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment! Yes, that's a good point. I was trying not to exceed the word limit, but my online presence has definitely changed. I think it is a natural process for most internet users to become aware of the online visibility they have after a while.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 12:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey! You mentioned a few crucial topics about the hazards of online activities. It was a good idea to start with the "always on" idea and how easily can people mash their identities. I think the paragraph when you started to write about your experience and the oversharing behaviour was one of the most important parts of this mini-essay. It highlights the problem that children have absolutely no idea how dangerous place the internet is. I believe everyone was acting like this when we started to use the internet ages ago. The other thing is, trolling and cyberbullying. These topics are so important because they can affect not only children but adults, too. I'm glad you mentioned, that's something people should take seriously. Overall, it was a pleasure to read this, you found the best references to support your arguments. Nice job. RichardwikiB (discuss • contribs) 10:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree that most users are unaware of their visibility online when they start using the different social networks. I am under the impression that nowadays, as the internet has a bigger impact on our lives, there is much more information and talks on these issues. Trolling and cyberbullying are also really important topics that can be discussed. Thank you for the feedback!--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 12:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Growing up in a world attached to technology it is sometimes difficult to see how it affects how we present ourselves to others and how that image can change depending on if we are on or offline, as well as what platforms we are using when online. I believe that one consequence that Boyd may not have gone into detail on is that while people are constantly switching their attention from the real world to one online, they are also switching their identities depending on which platforms they are interacting on (2012). I agree with that people’s identities are just different versions of themselves and not a reflection of a different person altogether, however I also think that people use social media to alter their identities to things that may not reflect personal attributes but ones they wish to acquire. Sometimes these alters are significant, as is the case with most online games involving avatars. uses the example of Club Penguin, which along with other fantasy games can allow the user to be someone very different from their everyday life such as a penguin. Other online identities are more subtle in their differences. Many social media influencers, for example, are posting a version of their lives to show the best image. Typically the information they post isn’t false, it is just edited to be seen in the best light. These multiple identities over multiple on and offline channels can cause complications as mentioned. That is why it is important to understand the reasoning behind peoples choices of how they present themselves in different situations, and to see how those multiple identities come together in the end to form overall an identity of a person. Boyd, D., 2012: "Participating in the Always-On Culture" in M. Mandiberg The Social Media Reader. New York and London: New York University Press. 71-76 MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 11:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You made really interesting points about the subject. I definitely find your focus on the dangers that social media can have on our everyday lives. I guess it all depends on how we make use of these platforms and how emotionally invested we are on those. And it is true that if the desire to portray a desired image of ourselves overcomes our own sense of being, or it is used to troll and insult other people anonymously, the issues concerning the distinction between on- and offline can be severe. Thank you for your feedback, really helpful!--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 12:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Nice job! You have used various sources to explain your ideas, which helps better develop and demonstrate your points of view in the essay. They are also well-presented, they blend naturally in your work and that make the essay more impressive. You do not just mention about your personal experience, which I think is relevant, but also making your experience to be more professional by adding those scholar's ideas. I do believe the behaviour of an individual, trying to fit in the cyber world is not a 'fake' one. It is never a bad thing as far as they behave in a way that will not cause harm to others. In other words, like what you brought out, cyberbullying and trolling. Overall, your essay is easy to follow and understand. Ideas are well-constructed. Just I think maybe you can mention more about your identity. Like what identity you are in Club Penguin, or in other social media sites and how these identities affects you. Cantthinkofanyname (discuss • contribs) 11:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for your comment! Yes, I agree that as long as our online identity does not harm the others or ourselves there should not be a big problem on having different characteristics on each. I will try to take your feedback into account, I definitely think that those are points I could have written more on, but I usually end up deleting stuff to follow the word count.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 12:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4/ Collaborative Essay Critical Evaluation – What ARE Wikis?
Hi, I found the structure of your argument here to be very well constructed, giving a nice flow to the discussion of ideas. Also it is really helpful that you have included links to the wikipedias of relevant topics within the discussion so that a reader might become more familiar with some concepts that they may have originally struggled with.

I completely agree with what you said about realising how simple it was to first use the editing function of wikipedia. Admittedly I am not the most skilled editor but it is easy enough to learn the basics and then you have the opportunity to develop those skills as much (or as little) as you may like to. With regards to what you mentioned about Gauntlett and how he interpreted Web 2.0 as a shared space and how you felt that this was not the case with the project we undertook, I would have a different view. Although we seperated ourselves into different sections we still worked collaboratively within these sections, and also the fact we organised ourselves shows some level of collaborative thinking in order to best utilise the available resources between us. Also I would say that there was lots of collaboration and discussion outwith the defined sections we worked within on the discussion page.

To summarise, I really enjoyed reading this well thought out argument as it presented lots of evidence and links to the academic field to back up what was being said. BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 10:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: ENGAGEMENT ON DISCUSSION PAGES & CONTRIBS
Grade descriptors for Engagement: Engagement on discussion pages, and contribs of this standard attain the following grade descriptor. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this descriptor will give you a clearer idea of how the grade you have been given relates to the standards and quality expected of work at this level:
 * Good. Among other things, good contributions 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 formatting, 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, discussing this in a transparent way with fellow researchers on the Discussion Pages. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.

As instructed in the labs, and outlined in the assessment brief documentation, students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.

Evidence from contribs to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of editorial activity as evidenced through ‘contribs’). These are primarily considered for quality rather than quantity, but as a broad guideline:
 * Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable”
 * Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant”
 * Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial”
 * Items on a contribs list that are <1000 characters are important, and are considered in the round when evaluating contribs as a whole because of their aggregate value

Overall:
 * several substantial contribs throughout the period of the project, and a small number of significant contribs to discussion – consistent engagement in evidence here

Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages
 * Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration
 * Good
 * Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay
 * Excellent
 * Evidence of peer-review of others’ work
 * Excellent

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * Clear delegation of tasks
 * Good
 * Clearly labelled sections and subsections
 * Excellent
 * Contributions are all signed
 * Excellent

Civility. Your conduct is a key component of any collaboration, especially in the context of an online knowledge-building community. Please respect others, as well as observe the rules for civility on wiki projects. All contribs are moderated.
 * Excellent

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly correspond to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is in relation to the making criteria as outlined in the relevant documentation, 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.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are especially good, and you have really taken on board the value of peer-review and collaboration as this work clearly shows. 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 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). Even in the case where you are a little late with the final peer-review, it has not marred what is a really excellent job. Well done.

General:
 * Reading and research: evidence of critical engagement with set materials - excellent; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material – excellent.


 * Argument and analysis: well-articulated and well-supported argument - excellent; evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position) - excellent; evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections) - excellent; evidence of independent critical ability – excellent!


 * Presentation: excellent use of wiki markup and organisational skills generally.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)