User talk:Lucystewpid

My name is lucystewpid. I am part of an educational class project in which I have to work on a wikibook as part of a team. Lucystewpid (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: What is a good Wiki?
The factor which seems most prominent to me in considering the qualitative differences I have experienced between social media engagement and wiki engagement is the wide spectrum of agendas which social media accommodates, in contrast to what I believe is quite a widely shared understanding of the purpose of Wiki*edia.

The motivations for and experiences which can be had while collaborating on social networking sites feels endless. For example, some may use it as a tool to promote a business/product or spread awareness of what they believe to be an underrepresented topic, while others may simply wish to immerse themselves in content they find entertaining. This initially seems like a melting pot of conflicting interests, like a building which simultaneously hosts an educational lecture; a stand up comedy club; a political protest; and a therapy session. It is necessary to recognize that many people and collaborations will engage with many different functions of social media, and are not confined to one strict experience. For example, a Twitter which centers around a certain political agenda can share something which makes them laugh. Though perhaps not an ideal example of political campaigners, this has never been more evident to me than in the Alt-Right's bizarre appropriation of a cartoon frog called Pepe. The cartoon frog, once simply an 'innocent emblem of slackerdom' now widely connotes iconography of racism, anti-Semitism and hate. I believe that this kind of derivation, though it can often be a framework for positivity as well as negativity, is enabled by the framework and shared understanding upon which social networking as built. It is a place for opinions, ideas, and of course change.

By contrast, I recognize Wiki*edia as having the purpose of collaborating to collect and archive reliable and objective information. The website of Wikipedia itself establishes fundamental principles it believes should guide its users, summarizing them in five pillars - one of which being 'Wikipedia is an encyclopedia' and another 'Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view'. If respected and upheld through moderation, this enables the many people to truths they may not access if seeking information through biased sources or if biased sources are to an extent being forced upon them. This complies with Levy's ideas of collective intelligence, which he described as a 'form of universally distributed intelligence, constantly enhanced, coordinated in real time, and resulting in the effective mobilization of skill.'

Lucystewpid (discuss • contribs) 11:56, 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.


 * 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, 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 very 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.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 17:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lucy! I think your analysis of the building blocks and cultures of social media was spot on, and I liked the simile you used as well. A large part of what makes people people is that they can be contradictory, or deviate from their exact goals, and I think we see this reflected in exactly the examples you have given. People will not be confined to a set, restricted experience, and they often post things which seem unrelated to their various media personae, which can cause conflicts among those who follow them. Derivation is nearly ubiquitous on the internet; there is almost nowhere you can go that people aren't taking concepts and rearranging them into something with a completely different meaning. I see this in the various memes that fly across my news feed, and after a certain amount of time passes, the meaning shifts a bit, and people start posting spin-offs, adding their own twist or meaning to the image. I believe this form of derivation is the result of everyone's attitudes and ways of seeing the world interacting with the memes they see on the internet everyday; they filter these images through their own consciousness, creating something with an entirely new meaning. ZachIsWack (discuss • contribs) 11:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Data Trails
I consider myself a drag performer (for clarity, a performance artist who also engages with makeup and costuming), and this governs the majority of my use of social media. My quest for attention on social networking sites has long preceded any dignified vindication of it generating opportunities for me in the offline world, but as it currently stands, using social media to share my work has the potential for me to gain fans within a small but fiercely dedicated community. This means I could receive work through popular demand; as well as enabling me to communicate with other performers, event organizers, etc. who could offer me work directly. I predominantly utilize this by using online platforms to share photographs of visuals I have created, videos of performances I have done, and simply trying to be entertaining in all media that I post. This is true of three social networking sites which occupy most of my time spent online, and upon which I have built the largest audiences - Facebook; Twitter; and Instagram. However, there is also a category of online platforms I use less frequently and have not attempted to build a following on - this is Tumblr and Youtube. This Wiki exercise encourages me to consider how visible I am online, what forms this visibility takes, what kind of information is visible about me online, who I have chosen to share it with why, and how much of this information is under my control. Since there is a major difference between two groups of my online platforms, and also more subtle difference between each individually, I have opted to address these questions in relation to each site on an individual basis.


 * Facebook : I choose to share the content I post on Facebook with almost anyone who wishes to see it, with the extent of my scrutiny of strangers' friend requests being glancing at their profile to check they have an interest in drag if it is not instinctively clear due to their profile picture or the number of mutual friends we have. The function of this is mainly to avoid being sent bizarre or explicit messages, which I would receive often before I began implementing a vague level of investigation. This sounds like a foolish system upon typing it out, but in over a year of managing my account it has proven effective. As well as being sent friend requests, I also of course send them - though I only choose to seek out offline friends and performers I am a fan of. As is the nature of Facebook friends, these people are entered into a contract in which they have allowed me to view their posts and in turn have access to mine. I am conscious not to share too much personal information in light of this, mainly in a vague nod to my own security, but also simply because I do not see the city in which I live or the university in which I study as relevant or necessary things to share, though the website itself often prompts me to fill in these blanks on my 'about me' page. The only information I believe can be gaged from my profile is that Glasgow is the city in which my hobby plays out most frequently, as well as the specific events throughout Scotland you can see me perform at.


 * Twitter : My Twitter account is public, which means anyone with access to the site online can look at it and anyone with an account can follow it. I am a lot less informative on this media outlet than I am on Facebook, mainly using my account to share silly anecdotes and talk to friends. This is evidenced in the biography and location which appears at the top of my profile, in which I reference that Glasgow is the performance scene in which I reside but filled in the space Twitter encourages you to add your specific location to simply say 'my lane' - a joking reference to the fact I am 'staying in my lane', a phrase synonymous with minding your own business or avoiding drama. I will often use my account to promote a certain show I will be performing in, but will usually only reference the shows name and not its location or the time it is occurring, as I know those who will be interested share my knowledge of this information already.


 * Instagram : My Instagram account is also public, and can similarly be accessed or followed by anyone. However, I don't believe I share any particularly personal information on this account at all - just pictures of creative things I have done with anecdotal captions.


 * Tumblr : I use this site only to reblog other people's content I find funny, or creatively inspiring. It is not intentionally anonymous, though I have not found it necessary to include even the most basic details of my identity because no one demands it of me, and I do not consider it a platform to interact with others upon as much as I do a personal mood board others happen to have access to. I have never promoted it or encouraged anyone to follow it, and I have only gained a few followers on it organically within the past year.


 * Youtube : This social media account is once again bare, I do not believe there is any personal information accessible on this platform as I only use it to follow my friends and like the content which they post.

Lucystewpid (discuss • contribs) 08:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lucy, I find what you've written here about your use of social media to be very interesting, as I use the majority of my accounts to keep in contact with friends rather than to create an audience. Like you, I'm wary when receiving friend requests from people I do not know and shy away from constantly tagging myself in specific locations, though I may mention the town or city I'm in. It's good to be aware how publicly accessible our online information is, and my privacy varies over different sites as well. Whilst I am quite open about most things I post, having my Instagram set to public and Facebook to my friends or friends, there are some private details that I don't need to share with the world, and I've also noticed how many sites ask you to fill out 'about me' sections with personal details we may not wish to share. Overall, what you've written is an informative insight into your uses of social medias and your awareness of your privacy on such sites. As far as data trails go, I've noticed targeted adverts becoming more apparent across my social medias and am curious if you've seen the same? Mmmorgaine (discuss • contribs) 17:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload
This exercise encourages me to consider how I deal with the fact that there is so much information available online, making it easy to be distracted. I instinctively interpreted this as content which distracted me because I enjoyed seeing it, such as funny tweets and scrolling through aesthetically pleasing Instagram accounts. With this in mind, I wrote the following response:


 * As someone who paused midway through typing this sentence to read a Buzzfeed article about a strangers uneventful trip to Berlin, I feel confident in saying I don’t really ‘deal’ with it at all. I don’t really see unexpectedly becoming immersed with things online as a problem I must overcome, but as an inherent part of the process of utilizing the internet for productive means or to achieve an objective goal. I believe this is in part due to the prevalence of popular culture which indicates online distractions are normal, a common ground we all share. The first example of this which comes to mind is images such the one shown to the right of this text, memes which spread across social networking platforms because they have been deemed relatable. Of course, this would become detrimental to my workflow if it prevented me from completing tasks necessary of me. However, I find myself to be inherently self-regulating, inevitably reminding myself of time constraints which stop frivolous activity in its tracks; as well only being able to gain entertainment from trivial things for so long at any one time. I suppose it could be concluded that pressure and boredom are driving factors in the regulation of how I distribute my time while trying to access information online, though they are not a coping strategy I implement; but rather an innate ability.

However, upon browsing the work of others in the class (specifically those working in the same group as I am on the Wikibook project, and ), I realised that it was also relevant to consider the inundation of information which I do not particularly want to see, such as advertisements; news stories from what I do not deem to be credible sources; and media I do not deem to be entertaining. Again, I do not believe I implement any kind of system to avoid these things, reacting by ignoring and occasionally complaining about things I do not like, a tactic which I believe transcends the logistical differences between the online and offline world. It has been interesting to see how observing the work of others online could help enhance my own independent work. This is particularly of note as I am in the early stages of contributing to a Wikibook on the hive mind and collective intelligence. As I have had essay deadlines of greater urgency than this Wikibook project I have not done contributed a great deal so far, however I intend to focus on it quite intensely over the next few days.

Lucystewpid (discuss • contribs) 05:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Lucy,first of all, I love the meme - including an example of a distraction is very beneficial to answering the question of this exercise. I too am often distracted by Buzzfeed articles, and I'm very guilty of going through their "Which (insert TV Show/Movie title) character are you?" quizzes. I agree that being distracted by other facilities of the internet is not always a bad thing, as there are times when I'm scrolling through sites like Facebook openly wanting something to entertain me regardless if it takes me off site. If it was not for procrastination, I may not have found some of my favourite online creators such as Youtubers and digital artists, however distractions aren't always desired when I have things like university work to be done. I also agree that some information available online does not interest me, such as adds and incredible news as you have mentioned, as well as constant gossip articles on celebrities that are borderline ridiculous. Hopefully we'll be able to put these distractions aside as we focus on our Wikibooks project for a more successful outcome. Mmmorgaine (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
I joined a team made up of three people, but the Wikibook we were contributing too was also worked on by another group of four, so it seemed natural for us all to merge into almost one large group to ensure there was no repetition of ideas or gaps in the exploration of our topic. This was set into motion by our group seeing on our books discussion page that the other group were planning an offline meeting, and asked if it would be beneficial for us to attend too. From there, we had to divide up the topics, with one person taking on the decidedly smaller of the topics, 'the hive mind'; and the rest dividing 'collective intelligence' into five key ideas identified by Levy as intrinsic to the topic. Lucystewpid (discuss • contribs) 11:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki was presented to us within this topic as a medium for sharing resources, ideas, etc with classmates; maintaining engagement with the themes and concerns of the module; writing for a small, supportive audience in a research environment; practically applying the principles of peer review; and thinking reflectively about how writing on a publicly viewable and moderated platform shapes the way people engage with one another in everyday life. I will now consider the accuracy of this in relation to my experience of the project.

Our book discussion page was a great tool for communication, and it was very helpful to see almost all of our communication accessible on a single page. The only issue I encountered with this was not receiving notifications outside the dimensions of Wiki upon being tagged to get my attention, as I am so used to because of social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook. We were enabled to divide ideas and each gain a better understanding of a small faucet of the wider topic, which was interestingly a very direct reflection of the topic we were looking at itself. As I quoted Lévy within the book, collective intelligence can be described as a form of ‘universally distributed intelligence, constantly enhanced, coordinated in real time, and resulting in the effective mobilization of skills’. Lucystewpid (discuss • contribs) 11:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Opperating within a new online enviroment, I struggled with some simple things, such as formatting my texts; and inserting images - specifically, the impracticality of following Wiki's rules to only upload your own images, as I did not have any which appropriately illustrated my ideas. I first reached out to my group for help, as I anticipated the quickest responce from them, and they provided me with a very obvious and practical solution. Lucystewpid (discuss • contribs) 12:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, I really enjoyed reading your reflexive account of the wiki project and I agree with a number of points you raised. At the beginning, I found the discussion pages to be quite cluttered and it was easy to occasionally miss information as there wasn't much structure in place. However, as everybody became more familiar with the wiki, things improved and it became a lot easier to navigate the discussion pages and share ideas and resources with everyone. However, had it not been required by this assignment, I would have stuck to other means of communication (e.g. Facebook, WhatsApp, or email) to share my ideas as I still believe that these forms of communication are a lot more efficient and user-friendly.


 * I agree that splitting up the tasks allowed us to work more efficiently and effectively as a group and I also feel that it allowed us to experience the very topic we were working on, "collective intelligence". Individually, our work provided a small insight into the world of Collective Intelligence and the Hive Mind but collectively, they provided a much broader and fuller understanding of the topic. We each brought our own understanding and knowledge about the topic and combined our knowledge to create something that was better than the individual parts. Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 15:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)
The introductory section could have been expanded to give an overall summary of ideas, connecting those ideas and orienting the reader in such a way as to reinforce the notion of narrative and argument. It would have been nice to use Condorcet’s historical concepts as a way of introducing the themes and issues under the following discussion.

The discussion sections are generally well written, and evidence research, reading and draw from a fairly good range of sources and materials. Some use is made of the platform’s strengths to emphasise aspects of the argument, and evidence links between various concepts. I would have liked to have seen more in the way of interwiki links, however – these are links that would have enabled you to make the link explicit between the materials here in this chapter, and ,materials found elsewhere in the wikibook. This is especially so for those sections, for which little to no evidence of research and cited material appears - i.e. the majority of paragraphs in the Economics section, for example, where links should have been explicitly made to the Digital Labour chapter. This would have made a considerable difference to the authority and engagement aspects of your collaborative writing.

Some very interesting and fairly well written material on politics, aesthetics and aspects of the hive mind (although this last appears in repetition in a number of different places on the chapter – suggesting that delegation and joined-up working could have been better. Some interwiki links joining up the various sections would have made more of the platform’s functionality.)

References section evidences research, reading and sharing of resources. Very good use of wiki commons images. Overall, very well put together, a little more content would have been better, although there are specific considerations which have been taken into account there, especially considering the number of total students working on the chapter.


 * Poor. Your contribution to the book page gives an acceptable brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a qualified familiarity with concepts associated with your subject, and although there is an effort to deliver critical definitions, the grasp of conceptual and analytical issues although reasonable, tends to be a little limited and insecure. There is evidence that you draw from relevant literature and scholarship, however your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is slightly lost, perhaps due to a limited depth of understanding the subject matter or over reliance on rote learning. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a minimally sufficient 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.


 * 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 suggests somewhat deficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * lack of engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Lacking in reflexive and creative use of discussion pages