User talk:Maaark25

Student working on a group project relating to digital media and culture. https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Digital_Media_%26_Culture:_Collaborative_Essay_Collection_2018

Annotated Bibliography: Wiki Exercise 2
Alam, M and. N. Prasad (2017) The Rise of the Internet of Things. Amazon Digital

In this book Alam and Prasad lay a foundation for further analysis of 'the internet of things' and give a thorough account of the future its building. The authors largely focus on the automotive industry - which they are both actively shaping - with discussion specifically around the notion of the connected vehicle. The book looks extensively at the connected vehicle: its history, its rise and its potential. However, its somewhat limited in its scope as the internet of things is much bigger than this industry alone. Nonetheless this specificity does garner an example that's extremely useful. It illuminates the potential future impact of the internet of things and how connected devices are paving the way to make the vision a reality. Although somewhat repetitive and restricted the book provides a strong foundation upon which I can build further and explore other aspects of this ubiquitous technological revolution.

--Maaark25 (discuss • contribs) 09:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
&#8593; Back to top

Project Reflective Account: Wiki Exercise 4
Wikibooks describes itself as a project for the creation of free content that can anyone can edit. It’s that last part which I think is most important. Producing a Wikibook is truly a collective enterprise and is all about collaborating to produce what can’t be done alone.

Clay Shirky - pictured left - has talked at length about what he calls cognitive surplus. This is the notion that instead of just consuming vast amounts of media we ought to be doing more, we ought to be creating.

In my opinion Wikibooks provides an ideal format for using cognitive surplus in the manner Shirky suggests. It’s free to use assuming you have access to a computer and the internet, its straightforward to set up – you don’t even need to make an account to edit, and crucially it’s open to anyone to contribute. In fact, it’s a format that actively encourages the sort of collaboration which the essay project represents. It’s a format that tells users to be bold and contribute as often and as freely as you desire.

It facilitates such projects extremely well. Each wiki book has its own discussion page alongside it which provides a location to share ideas and sources helping to make the research process much easier. Additionally, the open format means it’s not only those working on your essay that can contribute. I found others from the module could easily check our essay and join the discussion – providing feedback and sharing references. In fact, on Wikibooks any user could view our discussion page and collaborate. This open approach fosters a real sense of community on the platform. In any other group task I have experienced the process has been totally exclusive to our group - collaborating with others would have constituted misconduct. With Wikibooks it’s the opposite, its encouraged and its extremely beneficial.

Of course, the project wasn’t without difficulties as is the case with any group work. Typically, the instinct is to divide out the workload designating sections to each member. In many ways this was no different but while on other projects this might represent the only collaboration, on Wikibooks this is just the beginning. We were not only asked to collaborate, we were rewarded more for it. However, such collaboration can be tricky especially on an online format. Conversations take longer and lack the fluidity of a face to face discussion. The simple solution to this problem would have been meeting offline to supplement the work being done online. However, the reality is that this can be cumbersome with everyone living different, busy lives. Additionally, the format made it tricky to ensure everyone engaged and collaborated equally. As each post was public I also found the planning phase a little slower as I felt the need to check over each post far more than if was posting in a private group chat. Another issue was deadlines: I will be the first to admit that often assignments are left to the last minute. A topic interestingly that this module discussed in relation to always on culture and the distractions a click away that stop us getting anything done. On the collaborative essay leaving things to the last minute was hugely problematic but admittedly this was still the case for a large chunk of our project. However, this comes down to individual choices and situations more than it does the format which the work was done on. In fact, Wikibooks promotes not leaving work till the night before. It encourages the use of drafts which require you to do work early - leaving plenty time for others to use the editing features available to help refine work. Our discussion page even had a dedicated section for this.

Ultimately its clear, that despite some issues that often plague group work still occurring, Wikibooks provides an excellent format for collaboration. I found it far easier to find sources, generate ideas and overcome problems on this assignment. It promotes the notion of collective intelligence and putting cognitive surplus to use, and I hope to see more projects like the collaborative essay make use of it in the future.

--Maaark25 (discuss • contribs) 19:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments
&#8593; Back to top {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" ! style="background: blue; color: white; | Show Comments
 * - style="background: white;

This is a very well written post. Good use of work from Clay Shirky, however this may need a proper reference. Also, a good use of formatting to add a picture to improve the aesthetic. I do agree that this platform does allow and encourage collaboration by making it so easy to contribute. I also agree that the community feel to the platform did enhance the experience as we were all able to contribute and help each other’s projects. I had not considered the negatives of the platform that it takes away the advantages of face to face communication. As a society, we are so obsessed with using technology for everything without considering the negative effect of this. I agree that we could have done part of the work in person, however this may have contradicted the aim of the project. Using an online platform also allowed us to contribute at a time that suited us personally. Rather than finding a time that suited all members of the group, we were able to contribute and communicate when we could, this is an advantage for busy university students but also a negative. It motivates the “I’ll do that later” attitude that all students know too well. By taking the project online, it took away the personal and fun side of the work. Each message is very serious and direct, as you said, anyone can see what you write, so you want to make sure it’s precise. Also, I have no idea what any of the group look like, how old they are, what they do and so on. Perhaps this was not helped with the strikes and in an ideal world we would have organised the group earlier and started collaborating in the lab sessions. Regardless, this platform does create a community but also discourages face to face communication. I agree that Wikibooks is a great platform for collaborative work, however the best way to use the platform is yet to be found.

Thl00021 (discuss • contribs) 15:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: DISCUSSION, ENGAGEMENT, CONTRIBS

 * Engagement on discussion pages of this standard attain the following grade descriptor for contribs. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this 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:
 * Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory contributions 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) and will have little justification for ideas offered on Discussion Pages. The wiki markup formatting will need some work.

Students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.


 * This was clearly not the case here – only a few days registered as having logged a contrib. However, when you did engage, these seemed to be genuine contributions in terms of moving the project forward, especially in engaging with others in the group, registering offline discussion, and essay planning. A couple of the larger contribs on the discussion page are just drafts so I’ve largely ignored these, but there’s evidence here of some meaningful engagement that really enabled the essay to move forward.

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: o	Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial” o	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


 * Several contribs registered as being under 1000 characters, a handful that are “significant” or “substantial” in the sense outlined above.

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


 * This was the strongest element of your contribution. You encouraged others to comment/respond and fed back on offline discussion of the project, which turned out to be crucial.

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


 * There is some evidence of this. Probably the strongest part of your project work, but where you ought to be able to improve.

•	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.


 * You conducted yourself well.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
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.

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 work 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.


 * Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. Having said this – this was clearly the strongest part of your engagement, and some of the more interesting uses of wiki markup seen on this year’s book!


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, if a little 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. I like that you have used the formatting to help other users to engage.

General:
 * Reading and research: This is problematic – the reading of Alam and Prasad is general and descriptive, and derivative of lecture slides.


 * Argument and analysis: This is poor.


 * Presentation: good use of wiki markup and organisational skills. Some excellent work.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 10:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)