User talk:LydiaWithTheFringe

Hello, I'm Lydia and this is my user discussion page. This is a part of a class project focusing on the potential of WikiBooks and the collaborative effort behind it, which I am excited to be taking part in. LydiaWithTheFringe (discuss • contribs) 18:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: What Makes a Good Wiki?
My first experience of what most blatantly stood out to me as an online collaborative experience was when I ran a blog on the website “tumblr” with a handful of my friends. We enjoyed the jokes featured on the site, and went on to create a space in which we could combine our favourites together for us (and others to enjoy). We of course had our own blogs, but we benefited from our shared one as we quickly found that content that we had personally never come across ourselves would crop up on our joint blog, creating a collective content that surpassed anything we had achieved alone.

This clearly reflects on the idea that a collective effort can achieve greater than even the most successful individual, as our collaborative page of jokes and odd photos generated more humour than any of our solo efforts managed to do. This is the same concept that is brought into Wiki*edia, where the combined knowledge is intended to outshine that of even the brightest individual within the group. And yes, this was achieved between a few friends trying to generate a laugh, but could I claim that the format behind this was error-proof?

Should one friend decide they had enough of adhering to our self-set rules, nothing would effectively stop them from deleting the entirety of our content, or even going the opposite route and adding inappropriate material. Thinking on it now, I believe it would have been possible to delete whatever was posted if deemed unsuitable, but I doubt anything could have been restored once lost. This stands out to me, as one of the first things I noticed upon reading the introduction to Wiki*edia was the statement that the website can’t be broken, meaning anything that can be done can be undone, and likewise, anything that can be undone can we redone. Should someone decide to delete the entirety of this entry, it could be restored. However, what would possess one of my friends to vandalise something that they created with people they knew closely? Wiki*edia has to have these safeguards to prevent “trolling”, as it is far more likely to occur with strangers amongst strangers.

Compared to social media, Wiki*edia lacks a level of intimacy. On most social media, there is a large level of control the user can take over who views their content and therefore who engages with them. To reach a larger crowd, Wiki*edia lacks this. An engagement I may have with a fellow user over the course of this project may prove to be useful, but since lacking the fundamentals of trust I have managed to generate through my other social media accounts, there could possibly be an underlying hesitation when heeding the advice of those I don’t know. I will know that anyone participating in the same project is unlikely to try ruin my work, as that would in turn result in a low mark for themselves, but this is speaking in the general sense of Wiki*edia. I do not doubt that thousands of people a day attempt to edit misinformation into articles, as a stranger has little social obligation to a user they have no connection to. Wiki*edia is full of engagement between users, designed to reach a collective goal, but the goal isn’t perhaps so collective and the engagement so genuine. LydiaWithTheFringe (discuss • contribs) 21:20, 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.


 * 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.


 * 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 clearly write really well in an accessible and fluid style. There are a couple of things in your post that interested me, but this claim - I do not doubt that thousands of people a day attempt to edit misinformation into articles, as a stranger has little social obligation to a user they have no connection to. Wiki*edia is full of engagement between users, designed to reach a collective goal, but the goal isn’t perhaps so collective and the engagement so genuine. - I though very interesting because you have identified a key contradictory tendency in terms of both the platform and people's attitude's towards it. I think the key to remember is that the genuine contributors are most clearly part of a knowledge-building community, whereas trolls clearly aren't. That distinction allows us to think through this contradiction as both empirically true, but also problematic. Something to think about for project work perhaps?


 * It would be nice to see you making more use of the wiki functionality and markup. This 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 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) 09:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #1
Hi LydiaWithTheFringe! I really enjoyed reading your post and I think you made some really interesting points here. I agree with your argument that collective intelligence can be greater than the individual intelligence of even it's smartest contributor and I think this is especially true in a creative environment like you mentioned above. I was really interested in the point you made about being unable to establish trust on some social media platforms and how this affected your approach to collaborative projects. I wondered if you thought it was ever really possible to establish trust with online strangers? I'm assuming the blog you ran with your friends were friends you knew in real life and you could therefore validate their good character. I think I would find it difficult to allow strangers unrestricted access to a project I was passionate about and I wondered if you agreed with this? Thanks! Caroline WikiHacker (discuss • contribs) 20:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Caroline WikiHacker, your comment actually gave me a lot to think about as it hadn't previously occurred to me that none of the handful of friends I shared the blog with were people I had met in real-life and I had instead formed a close bond with them through my association with online gaming. I do think it is possible to establish trust with online strangers, which may remove the validation of my claim towards Wiki*edia. Thinking on it further though, we had spent a large amount of time getting to know each other before creating said blog, so I do believe it differs to the Wiki*edia experience, as as soon as you've created a page or edited a post, it is immediately up for scrutiny by others that you haven't spent the time to know personally in the way I had done with that handful of people. I was able to validate their good character without the use of face to face interaction, so I feel that my earlier cold attitude to nature of Wiki*pedia may have been presumptuous, as your point has made me realise that I do believe it IS possible to create trust through social media platforms alone. However, I still feel like the general lay-out of Wiki*edia creates an environment that is incredibly hard to nurture a trust in. Thank you! LydiaWithTheFringe (discuss • contribs) 18:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lydia, I agree with you point about Wikipedia lacking intimacy as I feel this site is hard to navigate without a lesson or tutorial. It is hard to figure out and probably why people don't have much time for it, and why they do not trust it. I also feel a big part of trusting someone or something is knowing what it looks like. This is what Wikipedia lacks, compared to other social media sites - pictures of the users. I feel pictures and images of people allow you to create a bond and connection before you have even spoken which is very hard to do on Wikipedia. As you suggested in your post, you can also change the settings on your social media accounts to allow only the people you wish to view them. You are unable to do this on Wikipedia and maybe why people are reluctant to give out as much information and create conversations and forums like the website was originally set up for. What are your thoughts on privacy, do you allow anyone to view your social media, or do you keep everything private? susannamhawes Susannamhawes (discuss • contribs) 00:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lydia, I do agree with you in regards to how working in a group can enhance and hinder the progress of a profile on social media. As well as the point you discussed about the fact that only one person in the group has to turn on the rest and delete posts from the account in order to sabotage the whole project I would also say that even without deliberate sabotage a group project such as this can fail due to creative differences within a group leaving the content produced unfocused. However I would also state that with a website such as Tumblr having a collaborative effort could also be useful for generating a competitive environment, as members strive to post the content which gets the biggest response on the page (ultimately benefiting the page overall). I understand how you feel that the impersonal nature of Wikibooks leads to an issue with trust. However I feel that within the context of this exercise trust is gained through the knowledge that anyone with access or knowledge of your account is also attempting to succeed in the same way that you are. To what extent do you agree with this? RossWithTheShirts (discuss • contribs) 11:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Data Trails
When I was younger I frequented amongst the online gaming community, and I was incredibly cautious about my online visibility. Like most people, I had a Facebook to socialise with my school friends, but I kept this separate from anyone who I had never had a real-life interaction with. I used Steam to participate and game with the online community, and chose a username that had little connection to my real name. I was cautious to give out even my first name on the internet, and would never dare give out my last name for the fear of dire consequences. Now I realise that realistically at the time, the most anyone could have done with such information is briefly view one or two profile pictures and possibly send a friend request only to be swiftly denied. A friend once pointed out that should a person on the street approach me and ask me for my name, it would have been highly unlikely that I would guard that information so closely as I did when it came to people that I communicated with on a regular basis, but as I was young and “vulnerable”, having a large visibility on the internet and encouraging the viewing of it was dangerous.

Even now the idea of having a large visibility on the internet comes with negative connotations, due to horror stories of stolen identities and online crimes, as well as the knowledge that few things can truly be deleted. This creates a fear of “being in the system”, which, while valid, can be a tad over-dramatic. Should proper measures be put in place by the user, it is not entirely impossible to create an online presence that depicts an honest picture of yourself, or sometimes even brighter. However, while writing this I unfortunately discovered that I had failed to do so.

I had planned to write about my large control over my online visibility, as I believed that through the privacy measures I had already set in place, I was safe from incriminating information appearing. I decided to do a google search of myself first to confirm this idea, only to be incredibly surprised. It could be my slightly uncommon surname playing a factor in this, but I was greeted with almost every social media account I had ever owned, including a Pinterest account that I was required by my teacher to create in Standard Grade Art and hadn’t touched since. While I wouldn’t say this was particularly shameful, what had me thoroughly shocked was the first result being my most recent tweet, which detailed some rather shameful drunken antics and foul language. I imagine now that it hadn’t occurred to my current employer to do a quick search of me before giving me the job, and I’m incredibly grateful for that.

What was interesting to note though, was that my Wiki*edia account made no such appearance. I believe that this is because in most modern forms of social media, you are encouraged to “link” your profiles together to reach most of your social circle. You can create accounts to other sites through Facebook, add your mobile number to integrate your contacts, and have a google account to stay on top of everything at once. This isn’t to say that Wiki*edia doesn’t want to create a collective, but instead Wiki*edia aims to create a collective outside of those you would normally interact with. A group of people who grew up in similar circumstances with similar interests would most likely consist of a base knowledge of the same things, and Wiki*edia tries to move beyond this. None of my content on this site is hidden or untraceable, and yet this vastly differs in meaning to my other social media sites. LydiaWithTheFringe (discuss • contribs) 00:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki exercise #2
I found this discussion to raise several good points, especially in relation to children and their relationship with internet culture. Using your own experience was a good choice as it made the story more personal to you and yet it was familiar. While I agree with most points raised it is important to note that context is key in most situations, which could have been focused into depth further. You mention the use of different profiles for Facebook is an important concept to keep in mind. This is a good example of how people can have different personalities on various social media platforms; not to mention it showcases the difference of person and persona. However, this can be more difficult now as some websites give you the choice to link accounts with each other, or to sign into a particular platform using another social media account. This makes it easier for companies to cater and advertise correctly according to what you say or do on either platform, an example of this would be Facebook's ad integration.Ianthe2nd (discuss • contribs) 09:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Your discussion made several good points throughout that I never really considered before. Your friend's comment about telling a person on the street your name without hesitation made me stop and think for a minute. While I agree in most situations many would freely give information such as their name or where they are from, most personal questions beyond that would garner a second look or an escape from the conversation. I feel like this protective nature over information both online and off has become a largely generational thing. It may just be me, but I'm always more wary of conversations with strangers in public, especially in downtown areas or on public transportation. Media coverage along with film and TV have really pushed the concept of protecting one's self from potential harm and as such made the world out to be a more frightening place than it actually is. Our age group has grown up being taught to be guarded and cautious with who we trust while previous generations were given more freedom as children. I think that's why older generations are often linked to being victims of internet scams - they're more trusting of the world. Another valid point you made was the link between social profiles and the profile "leaders" like Facebook or Google that control the rest. It really suggests that a person's social circles should all be linked, but aren't social media platforms geared towards certain hobbies or aspects? Why follow your friends on Instagram if they only post pictures of things that you don't want to see? I feel that linking the accounts reinforces that social pressure to add those you know from other places which may make you appear more popular, but it also alters your behaviour on said platform if you start catering to your friends and posting what you believe they'll want to see rather than what you'd like to share. Wiki*edia however offers a public forum to post upon that is free of the influence of others. It is more fact based and has no link to your social media persona. Natashakirmse (discuss • contribs) 17:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello! Thank you for the reply and interesting read. On the topic of the "why follow a friend with content you don't enjoy", there does appear to be a bizarre social media etiquette that has developed where many would actually find it an insult if you didn't give a friend a follow back regardless of a lack of shared interests. I personally find I'll give most things a "like" as I scroll through my instagram feed, not because I genuinely enjoy every photo, but out of a sense of politeness. Thinking on this, it's clear there is that popularity fight you mention within social media, and I entirely agree with the sentiment. LydiaWithTheFringe (discuss • contribs) 00:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your points about being afraid of sharing too much information online. It is actually very easy for a single person to find out a huge amount of information about you with rather minimal effort. Have you heard of doxing? Doxing is a very real threat and seems to happen quite commonly on chat sites and gaming sites, and personally I have had quite a bad experience with being stalked online which was possibly one of the scariest things I've been through. Because of this, I definitely take far more caution with not only the amount of information I share online, but also how I act online (as I've found that aggravating certain people can encourage them to commit cyber crimes such as doxing). You mentioned that you felt you were lucky that your employer didn't do a quick Google search on you to find your drunken tweets, do you think that it's unfair that employers look up candidates online? Or do you think it is our responsibility to be careful with what we say and do in the online world? KerryFromThePub-Round2 (discuss • contribs) 19:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a very good question! Honestly, I would have to say it depends on the circumstances. I feel grateful that they didn't look up my tweets on account of my occasional dark humour as opposed to the fact I do occasionally indulge in a night out, and I feel like employers that hold their candidates/employees free time against them to be taking a bit far. So long as you manage to maintain professional within working hours, I see no harm. However, I say that from the low position of a part-time receptionist. If I were to be an employer, I wouldn't be too scared by the idea of costumers googling my receptionist and seeing that she really loves a good drink, but if I was for example trying to agree a partnership with another company and I sent out someone to be representing my company when settling terms, would I be pleased if I knew that my representative was tweeting inappropriately and those tweets were easily accessible to the company I'm trying to negotiate with? I can't say for sure, but I imagine not. For this reason, I picture when I eventually start trying to climb the ranks in the world of employment, I'll be spending a long while making my accounts private. So yes, I do believe we have a responsibility to be careful with how we represent ourselves in the online world, but it is also up to the discretion of the person themselves. So long as you are posting with the understanding that is can and will be seen, you are free to post how you please. There is a lot of grey area within the idea, but I enjoyed your question as it was interesting to explore. LydiaWithTheFringe (discuss • contribs) 00:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey! I found your point very interesting on how guarded or how little guarded you would be in ‘real life’ as it were regarding visibility and whether or not you would give out simple information such as your name. It goes to show that perhaps even at younger age you were still extremely aware of how unsafe the internet wourld could be, what is more interesting is the fact that perhaps some people no longer hold that view – as you say, it was how you thought of it when you were younger. I personally would say that it is still very necessary to be guarded about information given out and shared on the internet. I would also like to say that your view on the Wikipedia situation, in terms of when researching your name that all of your social media accounts come up apart from the Wikipedia one, is intriguing as it somewhat suggests that Wiki can be considered safe in the way that very little personal information is shared due to the slightly less social aspect of this platform. Courtney 1994 (discuss • contribs) 20:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I really enjoyed your points on how you tried to keep your online self separate from the internet in a sort of way that kept you out of the system. I also use to be frequent amongst the online gaming community when I was younger, through both gaming forums and online services like Steam. I also do understand this fear of personal information falling into the hands of people you didn't want to have it in the first place. I tend to struggle with how much of myself I am willing to put out there because in a lot of ways it is almost impossible to not put a little of your real self in your online identity. BrianstirlingStudent (discuss • contribs) 22:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload
As someone who is very easily distracted, the infinite amount of information available on the internet is a blessing and a curse. Before an out of school drama exam, my teacher quizzed me on the topic I was meant to learn and mentioned how it was interesting that I had gotten all the information I needed on my computer, yet when she had done exams herself she had to trek all the way to the library and take out the appropriate books to get the same information. She didn't mean this in a derogatory way, she was just marvelling at change, but at the time I thought "thank god I didn't have to do that". As someone who is also heavily into instant-gratification, it sounded like my worst nightmare. However, I've often found that I study far better in paper format. It's hard to pin-point exactly why, but my best guess is that without tiny little hyperlinks to take me to the next related article or the "new tab" button to enable my wandering mind, it's far easier to stay on the task at hand.

It is in the nature of Wiki*edia for one to start in one place and end up in a different place entirely, everything requires a source so within a single article could be the links to hundreds of others. It was even a game in my school when we had computer time that we would choose a historical figure, click random article, and then through only clicking links within each article we would race to see who could get to the chosen person first. A rather silly game as well as a waste of class time, but effectively demonstrates the point. Because of this, I attempt to take as much research off the screen as possible, be it finding hard copies of the books or printing out what I’m trying to read. This I find works best as it allows me the entire web to find the information to begin with, but helps me concentrate with the conventional way of studying to stay on the relevant information I have sourced.

However, as a project that requires online engagement throughout, it’s difficult to achieve the disconnection that I find beneficial to my own studies. When working on something that takes place on the internet, it’s hard to avoid distractions, but to help this we have created a section within our discussion page to put works that appear to be useful. They may not all make it into the final work of the article, but it allows a more stream-lined area of approach, as it allows us to read through several works while still staying on track for the task rather than drifting off into information abyss. LydiaWithTheFringe (discuss • contribs) 03:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #3
Hi Lydia, this was really fun to read. I too am very into instant gratification- I never really thought about how I can get all the information I want for a project off the internet but that is very true- this is what I mean by using the internet for information has become so incorporated in our daily lives. It's the standard norm of us. However the few times I have taken a book out the library for my research, I too find it a lot more easier to engage with it and stay on task because the internet is so distracting!

I never played that game a school it sounds hilarious but I totally get the point you mean about one page here taking us to several other pages- Wikipedia is very good at doing that. I also agree with your last point- this project is so online based that I fine myself being bombarded with so much information and I don't really know what to use, it can get very frustrating and lead me feeling very lost. What you have done on your discussion page seems like a very good idea and I'm sure that will help you stay on track a bit, best of luck with the project!Tamoloriiii (discuss • contribs) 20:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I definitely agree with the Wikibooks Discussion pages aiding in the group project. Having a group provide their input seems to cancel out individual distraction and provide useful information all the group can use.

I have also agree that the internet harbours distraction around every corner, and many websites now seem to exploit the fact that we are likely follow links tangential to what we are viewing. Entertainment and news sites especially litter their articles with links to other stories they have published, but even when reading through sources for the Wikibooks project I have found many journals and articles link to other pages. I will definitely try and take more time to search for physical sources, as I think I could benefit from less online distractions! Dcunningham1017 (discuss • contribs) 00:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, you make a very valid point about the comparison of work on paper to work in the digital realm. I feel like there is a divide when it comes to education regarding technology. While laptops and tablets are often marketed for schooling and note taking, I've found there are less people (in the UK specifically) who use their laptops in classes. In Canada there's a larger divide (about fifty percent) between those who type notes and those who use pen and paper. I personally tend to stick with pen and paper. As you mention, hyperlinks create a world of distraction that can take me a million different places whereas with a notebook I'm focused solely on what I'm writing for my class. The same works with studying - I often prefer to take notes by hand and study those rather than organizing things through my laptop. It's the assignments such as Wiki or essays that are the difficult ones as they force us to go online and struggle with distraction. While procrastination in previous times came from outside sources, now it's often a struggle solely based on a single device (ie laptop) and the connections that device has access to. Natashakirmse (discuss • contribs) 01:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lydia, I think the example you used about your teacher is really interesting because it just shows the extent to which we've changed the way we find information in such a short time. I also agree about the points you make on things like hyperlinks and opening new tabs that allows you to keep trawling through information and getting off track. Personally I've never thought to limit my tabs or the amount of information that is on the screen, I'm actually quite bad for constantly having hundreds of tabs open, especially when I'm doing references and need to look at multiple pages of multiple books and articles. I agree that the discussion pages for the wiki project allows us to sort out our information a lot more cleanly and should be a lot simpler to not get overloaded with it all. Cathym97 (discuss • contribs) 11:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: WikiBook Project Reflective Account
Personally, I found the collaborative process of the WikiBooks project to be incredibly difficult to tackle. Few additions were made within my group’s section before we had our first face-to-face meeting, and we immediately arranged the next meeting as we realised how much further we were progressing when not limited to the blocky and often confusing form of communication offers. This isn’t to say that everything contributed was done within “in real life” meetings, as we frequently tried to maintain engagement every day, as well as engaging with members of other groups. It is instead to say that, while we did get by using the WikiBooks format of communication on many circumstances, we were far more capable of completing objectives and bouncing ideas when we were stepping away from it. Often our best ideas and most valuable sources that are logged within our project came from a face-to-face interaction that we then went on to place on the page so we all had a record of it to return to if needed.

The library meetings and messenger chats were vital to the completion of the project, but it is important to note that while we managed to hold gatherings within our group, there were several groups working on each page. In this aspect, WikiBooks collaborative nature was ideal as it allowed as a professional way to interact with the other groups, as a library get-together of 3 or 4 groups would be chaos. It also granted a less personal feeling, allowing critical feedback without the fear of offence or subsequent lashing out.

The greatest difficulty I found was surprisingly not the management of engagement, but instead trying to relate each entry onto the page to the course themes and teachings. As the idea was for a collective page to be made up from every individual, this meant no two people would be writing the same thing. This was of course useful in creating the final product: a public and collective knowledge. The downside to this, however, was at times people were left to tackle sections that were not necessarily straight forward in the way of linking to course texts and theorists. I was required to write a section on spyware, and while I was able to find several comments on the topic and repercussions of the matter, when it came to stripping it down to the bones and explaining how spyware functions, I came up empty handed. This can be chalked up to my own difficulties to stay on task, but I do feel that (to an extent) an uneven playing field was created which allowed some to excel further than others. That being said, there was nothing stopping those with more hard to relate sections from adding wisdom to another group and helping contribute things to their sections, as we were actively encouraged to engage and participate with other groups, so the effectiveness of the WikiBooks project and the collective intelligence was left to how the individual chose to utilise it themselves. LydiaWithTheFringe (discuss • contribs) 16:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #4
Hi there! I really enjoyed reading your thoughts on the Wikibook project. I think you raised a lot of good points on the challenges of collaborative work. I was interested in what you said about the wiki discussion pages feeling impersonal and how this made it easier to give each other feedback or criticism. Do you think this is similar to the online disinhibition effect? I wonder if some people maybe felt more restricted by social pleasantries during your face to face meetings and then felt a little more confident and uninhibited on online platforms. I think its an interesting concept - I certainly think I come across more confident online than I do in person so I'm probably more likely to put ideas forward in an online chat than sitting in a face to face group. Thanks! Caroline WikiHacker (discuss • contribs) 20:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello there. I agree with you whole heartedly that the wiki project had unexpected difficulties, namely communication. When I met up with my group once or twice all we did was set out who would do what and just simply break up the work. Even in the discussion pages there wasn't really anything actual discussions, the wikis themselves just aren't great for communicating with one another. Social Media messaging and real world meeting are how my wiki project went as smoothly as it did. Also the actual work on my chosen topic while not too difficult, there was a similar struggle as it wasn't a topic I had been too familiar with before. BrianstirlingStudent (discuss • contribs) 22:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a very thoughtful opinion, and I definitely agree with what you’ve said about the Wikibooks collaborative nature was ideal as it allowed as a professional way to interact with the other groups. Also, people can communicate and discuss with each other to improve the content, which carries the idea that you said that far more capable of completing objectives and bouncing ideas when we were stepping away from it. I also think the difficulty is that the ideas on the website need to be made up from every individual, and no two people would be writing the same thing, which I think it's more reflects the importance of communication and engagement of other people, because as you said it is a public and collective knowledge.

Your personal experience is really helpful to me because I found it very useful how you mentioned about how we were actively encouraged to engage and participate with other people, and the effectiveness of the collective intelligence was left to how the individual chose to utilize it in this project. Shekkkkk (discuss • contribs) 00:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Response to Wiki Exercise #4
Hi Lydia, I enjoyed reading your thoughts on the Wiki platform and project. I hadn't thought about your argument about the creation of an uneven playing field with how content was dispersed within each topic from the book so thank you for highlighting that as after reading your thoughts I completely agree. I also agree that a lot of the most productive time working on the project was done in face-to-face encounters with teams, do you think there is a way for those kind of encounters to be regarded as project engagement and go towards our grades? Recording group meetings and uploading to discussion pages with time, date, location, etc. included. As I feel the platform caters to those most eloquent on a keyboard and the more proficient online, and specifically Wiki platforms, and maybe doesn't allow for those who have great minds and are more suited to in-person communications to have that sort of engagement with the topic counted towards their grade. I would love to hear how you think all possible areas of engagement could be recorded in the best possible way for measuring participation in the module, and thus grading each individual.

Thank you StuG772 (discuss • contribs) 12:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Response to Wiki Exercise 4
Hello, Lydia. I found reading about your thoughts on the Wikibooks project and the nature of the platform thoroughly fascinating. I agree that although communication and composition of work is possible through Wikibooks it is hardly possible for a group to function adequately without meeting in person. I had a similar experience in which our group attempted for a few days to communicate over social media what we were meant to be doing to little avail and where only able to get direction and function after a face to face meeting. However I did not find that more than one of these meetings was necessary and our group was able to use the platform in order to contribute and create our page from there on after. For me I feel that the main element that can only be formed in a real life consultation is the direction of the group. Once we had decided our theme and exactly how we were going to go about tackling the task our group was able to go off and do individual research. From this we could share specific information easily through Wikibooks and create drafts of our own respective chapters which took less organisation as had been required in the initiation of the project. Do you feel that direction is the key prospect of the project that can hardly be created and planned through communicating on Wikibooks? RossWithTheShirts (discuss • contribs) 18:49, 20 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


 * 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 to a variable standard (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Satisfactory engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Reflexive, creative and fairly well-managed use of discussion pages using deployment of somewhat limited judgement relating to key issues, concepts or procedures