User talk:Markpopradi

Wiki Exercise

Online Visibility

I would say that I am part of that generation that is fairly visible online 27/7. This is mainly because all the mobile phones have data therefore we are always somehow connected to the internet. The world wide web is dangerous, yet we chose the share a huge amount of information about ourselves without thinking about the consequences. I would love to say that I did not do so, but sadly I did. There are several online platforms where I have a presence. I frequently use Instagram and Snapchat, mostly for the pictures. But I also use Hudl, which is a sport online platform which is required by the team. Least but definitely not last, Facebook. My Facebook account is almost 10 years old with countless and countless of embarrassing comments, pictures and posts of my teenage life. On these platforms I usually introduce myself with the least possible information of myself. However, this was not the case at the very beginning. I shared everything. My siblings, the music I liked, my parents and these are just a couple of things that I mentioned. It is also notable that at some point of my 'social media career' even my relationship was visible. But as time passed, I began to lean back into the shadows by deleting the majority of my photos and also put every setting on private, therefore my posts or updates were only visible to those who were close to me. It took a while to understand that the updates that any social media giant asked for became even more personal information and were not as good as they seemed in the first place. Even though there are restrictions, people still managed to trick the system a create and account. One can safely say that this was one of the main reasons of the information overflow on social media, because their age, people were not thinking clearly even though they could have controlled the information they were about to share. Yet again, I was part of this exceptional group as well so this statement comes from my not so good experience from almost a decade ago. Markpopradi (discuss • contribs) 14:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography
Wiki exercise

McKee MD, AC.2009: 'Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy in Athletes: Progressive Tauopathy After Repetitive Head Injury', Journal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology, Volume 68, Issue 7, 1 This article written by McKee focuses on Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy or commonly known as CTE. Her study emphasizes the importance of head injuries in athletes after progressive repetitive head injuries. The author relies on studies that has been researched for several decades. The sole and main purpose of the article is to explore further possibilities preventing traumatic repetitive head injuries. It is also notable that the journal contains an enormous amount of evidence due the unselfish donations of former athlete's families or the athletes themselves. The research helps me to understand the importance of head injuries and makes me aware of the situation. Mckee also suggest that Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy is preventable. Not to mention that if there is the smallest chance that CTE is present in an individual's life actions must be taken as soon as possible in order to be able to prevent further damage. The main limitations of this article is that even though new studies come out every year, major leagues like the National Football League are not taking this seriously, therefore the author suggest, further and more detailed research must be done with the help of athletes. This article is helpful only for my own individual purpose to help me to understand the main complications with head injuries. (Markpopradi (discuss • contribs) 12:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC))

This is a good and concise summary of a an interesting article. The topic is one I’ve taken more of a keen interest in recently as well due to the Mason retirement in football and a few personal experiences. Closer relation to the essay topic (it possible) would’ve been a bonus but otherwise good stuff

Danielmay89 (discuss • contribs) 09:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC) Danielmay89 (discuss • contribs) 09:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Mark!!! Its an interesting topic and I can imagine that there is plenty of information regarding this issue. Many athletes do suffer after their career in professional sports like American football or rugby as they get hit multiple times. A friend of mine has experienced 11 concussions in his semi pro rugby career which took away his opportunity to go pro. According to him he sometimes notices that he thinks and reacts slower to things than he used to do. But not just that many players in football or soccer header the ball, which if done wrong over a long period of time can leave its marks on the brain and the neck. In the USA they limited children under 16 to only header 4 times a season as more could affect the development of their brain. But when it comes to professional athletes and head injuries, it is another risk they have to take into consideration. Any sports at a professional level have specialized doctors who help the athletes to get back on their feet as fast as possible.

Finding a way to decrease these injures would be game-changing and would prevent many repetitive head injuries. In your annotated bibliography you also said that the research has been collected for more than a decade. That will provide a wide spread of information which would allow for new and revolutionary discoveries. The fact that many athletes and athlete families have willingly provided information, has brought the study a whole step forward and allowed a closer connection between the families and the conclusion of the study. As you are an American football player I can see how this can also be related to you and how this topic would interest. Perhaps not personally (if you haven’t experienced a head injury) but by seeing one of your fellow team mates receiving a blow to the head could trigger your interest for this topic. I personally can’t say that I have experienced any head injuries as I play basketball, which is very much non-contact and does not require tackling someone. But I have seen it happen in other sports and the disorientation that they feel must be devastating to the brain. I personally find the topic very interesting and think if the right information comes in, a ground breaking conclusion could come out from this study.

I’m really intrigued about how these injuries can get worse and worse and what the preventative measures would be or what can be done when an athlete is diagnosed with CTE. I can imagine it requiring an MRI scan to see how big the damage is. I would think that rest is perhaps the only method to fix a patient that has CTE but I would have to read the journal to know. It truly is a shame that big associations like the national football league don’t take it seriously, because it is an individual’s health that is at risk and it could have long term damage or side effects that we don’t know of just yet. I personally think that this topic could be argued both ways but I personally see it as; if you have this issue, discuss and take action against it before the damage is irreparable.Chrisalwayson (discuss • contribs) 17:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration Essay Reflective Journal
It is safe to say that our group project was done via Web 2.0. We were connected online, however, we shared our ideas in person. This might goes against the concept of the second generation of the World Wide Web, but it is web 2.0 nevertheless. This time a java platform, Wikibooks, was the bridge in between me and my fellow classmates.

Wikibooks is one of the perfect examples for online visibility as all your contributions are saved. It saves the date so a visitor is perfectly informed who contributed on the page. It is safe to say that in some way the webpage emphasises group work; collectively everything can be better. Therefore, it was a tremendous help when my group worked on our project. Everything was visible; who contributed to the topic and when. Furthermore, due an inconvenience we were not ready to submit our work on the same day. But thanks to the contribution mark, it is clearly visible when someone is finished.

Companies such as Facebook, WhatsApp or Snapchat are softwares which use online visibility more than any other companies. Although Wikibooks and WhatsApp gives you the freedom to choose either you really want to show yourself or not, the majority of social networks do not offer this possibility. It gives you an option to share your work with the job, however, in this case we did not have a choice. But I think it made it more professional as students had to pay attention to the deadlines and contributions. It is rather mandatory for them to show online visibility. I would say that this is a way of emphasising visibility. Why? I think nowadays this is not an option, just on a few websites. For example, on Facebook I would rather start a conversation when I know that my friend is online, thus I am expecting an answer if not immediately than in the next minutes. It is safe to assume that I am not the only one who thinks this way.

When talking about community, if I have to be perfectly honest, I think Wikibooks does offer a great opportunity to join a community where people can foster their ideas. The group project supports this statement because I admit, I browsed through most of my classmates projects in order to gain a proper insight to this work. Furthermore, it was a compulsory activity to leave comment at other student’s page, opening a new discussion. By doing so, we did have the chance to foster our ideas and try to help each other as much as possible, therefore, it is safe to say that in a way, Wikibooks does foster a community.

Above all, personally I think that our group could have done an incredible job, however, time and miscommunications sadly were a major problem. But I am confident that my fellow groupmates learned as much of this experience as I did, therefore I am looking forward for future challenges and a new possibility to expand my knowledge and push myself towards my boundaries.

.Markpopradi (discuss • contribs) 17:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Mark!! Web 2.0 is an interesting topic as our modern world only exists because of web 2.0. Social media collaborations and communications have skyrocketed in the past years and there is probably way more to come in the future. Regarding the collaborative essay my group also met up more often than sharing our information online. But Wikibooks helps out with this a lot as we could see each other’s information and input and we were able to design our page as well. Writing a collaborative essay was something new and exciting for me. I was looking forward to the challenge of trying out something different and it added to my online skills as well. I’ve learned more about Wikipedia and Wikibooks then I have ever before and I do believe that I will be using this in the future. I like that it is very open to other to view and it also helps create a well-rounded group environment. It is true that doing something in a group may be a little more effort but in the end you have someone to share the feeling of success with. In my opinion it is nicer to celebrate with someone than alone. I can imagine that some difficulties slid in. I’m sorry to hear that there were some struggles with submission, but that is something you can always improve for the upcoming collaborative essays and hopefully you will manage then. Visibility is always a tricky topic, because there are so many different social media platforms that either have strong privacy settings or weak ones. The ones that seem to be weaker are the bigger platforms like Facebook, who collect your data and use it or snapchat same case. Sadly in the terms and conditions of Facebook it states any other companies related to Facebook have the same privacy settings. I’m sorry to tell you this but WhatsApp has become a part of Facebook after it was bought, which technically would mean that there is surveillance there too. There are so many loopholes and other ways around privacy settings that these big companies know and abuse.

Wikibooks on the other hand, as you did say, is a nice alternative as it is not as well-known and used but it has helpful information for anyone who’s interested. You can show yourself and your entries to anyone who is in thirst of knowledge and he can comments and perhaps add new ideas and perspectives towards you topic, which then again could become a proper debate or discussion.

I can only agree with your final statement that Wikibooks has shown me something new that I’ve never tried. It goes to show that sometimes trying something new can be amazing. It personally developed my IT skills as well and helped my understanding in communication research better. I did struggle at some times but I received help from fellow students and friends who have a higher understanding if these things. I really enjoyed your reflective essay as you touched upon many topics and ideas that I share interest for.

Chrisalwayson (discuss • contribs) 23:31, 12 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:
 * Clear Fail. Assignment responses receiving marks below 30% tend to not contain any merit or relevance to the module. Contrinbutions are one-liners, sometimes made up of text-speak, if there are any contributions at all. Often they are indicative of failure to comment on other students’ ideas, and therefore do not engage with the crucial peer-review element. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement, or the user has been blocked for vandalism or other contraventions of wiki T&C. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.

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


 * None.

•	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


 * None.

•	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


 * None.

•	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


 * None.

•	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.


 * None.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:32, 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.

Very Poor. Often, entries of this standard are quite brief, are structured poorly and are not spell-checked. They are often irrelevant, and offer little engagement with the concerns of the module or the assignment brief. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be of a very poor standard and as a result it will be difficult for the reader to engage with the discussion.


 * This work is at the lower end of this grade band, so there’s clearly room for improvement here. Some of the material posted has serious clarity problems which affect comprehension. Some of the observations are a little off-topic and of unclear relevance. 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. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would have made a considerable difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – only one in total undertaken, which means that you have not really fulfilled the briefs for these exercises. 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.

General:
 * Reading and research: some in evidence, although ther rrelevance of a journal article on head injuries is highly questionable, and is, frankly, a bizarre choice of submission.


 * Argument and analysis: See above comment – clearly more work needed in this regard.


 * Presentation: Much more work could have been done in this regard.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)