User talk:Melissa0908

Hello everybody:)

Here is lot of space for every opinion to my thoughts, don't be shy and comment my posts or ask me questions. I would be glad about your interactions.

Wiki Exercise #1 What Makes a Good Wiki
There is much space on social media platforms for sharing ideas. They are full of users who talk about different topics. My experience is that the most users don't act like they are talking to a real person. They feeling save because they can be anonymous while they are surfing through the internet. There are many user who don't treat the others with respect and many conversations are not that civilized as you expect. This is possible because Facebook isn't banned so many people like they should have to. For sure there is an option with them you can report a person who is bullying you or who offend you, but the attempt that a user is really banned is not very promising. That harms the quality of social collaboration.

I guess that the wiki engagement is more successful than the engagement on "other" social media platforms. When you write an article and want this to be published, this article will be proofed by two "experts" before it will be published. It is not unusual that users who are offend others are banned by the platform. This allows are civilized discussion between the user.

I don't know much about the way you can show your ideas via wiki, so I just can talk about "other" social media platforms like Facebook etc. Mostly you have the opportunity to share pictures and short video clips, some platforms allowed you to share audio files. This can be very helpfully, for example when someone is talking about a short clip. You don't have to waste time for searching it in the world wide web, he just can send you the file and you just have to click on it. This is aiding the workflow. Melissa0908 (discuss • contribs) 20:22, 9 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 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, perhaps a little more polish in relation to the finished post (the great thing about wikis are that you can go back and edit them!) and more care in proofreading before submitting any assignment never did any harm. Additionally, 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 – none undertaken. Well, there was a brief sentence on one, but this isn't enough to fulfil the exercise requirement. This would effectively have halved your mark in an assessed context.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 17:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I think your idea that Facebook is a good platform to aid workflow is very true as passing on information via links or private messenger can be a very quick and effective method of passing on information to multiple people. I would tend to disagree with your statement about Facebook being worse at banning users than Wikipedia. This is because on Facebook you have to be signed in to a profile to access the platform and Facebook regularly closes down private users pages'. However on Wikipedia you do not need to be signed in to access information. JamieKingGinge (discuss • contribs) 12:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2 : Visibility and Data Trails
They say: the Internet does not forget anything. A quite interesting point. Because of that I "googled" myself to see how visible I am on my way in the Internet and which data trails I leave behind.

I started the search with my full name. None of the results was linked to one of my social media accounts. Just when I looked for Images, I found one linked to my Twitter-Account and one connected to Xing.de. I was very surprised. Because when I create a new account on a social website, I actually make sure that you can't see pictures of me if we are not connected "friends" on this page. When I clicked on the pictures, they handed off to my social media accounts. By the way I deleted my Twitter-Account, I never had tweet something. I don't wanna be found via Google for my Xing-account, so I changed the private settings. Now it will takes some time till the pictures can not be found via Google. I am curious.

Melissa0908 (discuss • contribs) 01:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess everybody who uses the internet leaves data trails behind. Every Android-User has to create an Gooogle-Account. If this User want to "google" something with his device and with the web browser Google Chrome, their location is displayed at the bottom of the page. If you don't want that you have to find the correct settings to block this information. The same happens when you use Facebook. Before I went to Stirling, the advertisement's on my timeline had included exclusively German brands. Since I am in Scotland there are just advertisement's from the UK. Although I have blocked the location information for Facebook.

You have to be aware about, that every information you share on a website is not only visible for your "friends". Some Companies try to collect all information they can find about you. It is like our private stuff and all private information are behind a transparent wall, ready for everybody to read and use.

Melissa0908 (discuss • contribs) 11:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment on Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Data Trails
Hello Melissa0908,

You made a good point there. The internet did not forget about your deleted Twitter account. I also have XING, but use it in a different way than you do. I let all my virtual guards down in order to be found. It should be part of my narrative like Van Koten defines it and represent myself as journalist. I want people to find it and even use it i.e. as reference in my applications for internships. What was your reason for using it differently? Do you fear identity theft or surveillance?

I am pretty open with the use of my social media accounts and they are mostly easy accessible. Luckily I did not made any bad experiences yet. I experienced the same as you did regarding my Facebook (as well as Instagram) adverts. I guess, it is not only a matter of blocking the accessibility of locating you via Facebook, but also a matter of the English net provider we use here to have access to the internet. Guess, we cannot control everything, unless we would be willing to even use a proxy server for that.

--DesireeSophie (discuss • contribs) 19:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey DesireeSophie,

I use XING to create contacts within the platform. I guess it is important for you as journalist to be found outside the platform as well. I don't know yet which profession I want to pursue and for now it is enough for me that only members of XING can find me there. I want to represent me there as well, it is a kind of CV for possible employers.

Have you ever thought about to create a second identity for your work as journalist?

I have saw some authors on Facebook who have a account for the public and one for the closest friend. I guess they want to save there privacy.

Good point with the net provider, I have not thought about that yet. There are so many things you have to notice. You are right. We can not control everything but I like to mention even offline we do not have that control.

°Melissa0908 (discuss • contribs) 20:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)



Hi Melissa,

most information on my Facebook profile are visible for friends only. I try to keep it a bit more private, because it contains private information, but nothing I would be embarrassed of. My online identity and the way I present myself online align with my real identity, I would say. Therefore, people who know me would never be shocked or surprised about something I post. I would not post anything, which could influence my work as a journalist in any bad way. On contrary, I try to use social media that way that people could get a good narrative about my doings. To answer your question: No I would not consider to create a second online presence as journalist yet, because I am still an ongoing journalist and do not have enough references or contacts to do so. In short: I do not feel like my work is important enough yet.

In case zou do not want to be found trough Google at all, you can simply ask them to remove the pages from their results. Google has a process for this and another one for Google Images. But the apply for pages which have been taken down or old, just like your deletet profile account. If you want to read further into it or know how to do it, I would request reading the manual.

Would it be an option for you to delete some of your social media profiles or to use other ways of communication to prevent companies from collecting your data?

--DesireeSophie (discuss • contribs) 11:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You don't mention which other internet-based accounts you have had apart from XING and Twitter. The more accounts you have, the more links they are able to make and therefore, presumably, the more visible you will become. If you only have the two accounts then that would account for your lack of virtual visibility. Professionally, I would find it very difficult to function without a number of online accounts, although I do ensure that these are as secure as the various platforms allow. However, if, as Astra Taylor suggests, the 'dominant business of the Internet is surveillance' then the entire system is set against any intention that an individual would have in protecting the data they 'own'. Vickthestick (discuss • contribs) 08:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You make a very interesting point about Android users requiring to create a Google account before they can search anything. I (apologies to all those apple users) am an android user and have never thought twice about the Google account I had to create. I have never noticed that my location was turned on when using Google until I read your post and never considered it as a method of leaving a data trail. Having read your post I decided to try and turn the location off when using Google and you are right that the settings were pretty difficult to find and use them. JamieKingGinge (discuss • contribs) 19:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3 Information Overload
I wake up, the alarm I have put on my smartphone is ringing. While during it of, I see two new messages at What's App, three at Facebook and one at Instagram. I take my phone and reading the messages while brushing my teeth. The messages at What's App are from my friends, they are planning to meet after class today and asking for a cool location to chill out. The messages at Facebook are containing one new request for friendship, a note that one of my "friends" had updated her relationship status from "in a relationship" to "Single" and a note that someone had linked me to a photo, which was taken at the Party last night. Instagram is telling me that one of the accounts I am following has posted a new photo about healthy food. After class, my friend and I want to going to a new social hot spot we found with Google. Because we don't know where we exactly have to go, I am starting Google Maps.

As Turkle is mentioned in the chapter "Always on" in her book "Alone Together", we are tethered to the technologies we are consume. I guess that in so many situation of our life, we use a technology which makes our life "easier". Because of that, some technologies become a social thing. If you don't belong to the social group who uses this, you will be left behind. The latest trend is it to sharing more and more information over social media platforms. The whole day we are sharing or looking for new information.

It is the same problem as with advertising messages. Every day we are exposed to about 5.000 advertising messages. The messages are around us, every time. They are there when we are going to the supermarket and of course also in our pockets 24/7, thanks to our smartphones. Let's let us pretend the advertisements would be consists of the information we all are sharing at the internet. Everyone, or just the people you are calling your friend on the social platform, can see that you broke up with your boyfriend, because you have change your status in "Single". They can see every photo you ever posted. As the flood of advertising started, everybody was annoyed about it. So as on social media platforms, some people are annoyed about that it seems like everyone has to post what he is eating at the moment. But even they can't hide. Because if they would, they also wouldn't know about the break up of the "dream-couple" in their class or at work. What an embarrassing situation if you ask one of them without this knowledge what they are going to do on their next anniversary. They would have either in the group, someone create on Facebook, for his birthday-party on Saturday. Maybe they would not even now there is a party. Even if they are on Facebook, they have to be online, regularly.

My friends and I do not really plan to meet. Someone writes in our Whats-app group if the others want to meet and within 1 hour we are meeting. So, if you are don't reachable all the time... maybe you will miss something. --Melissa0908 (discuss • contribs) 01:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Melissa0908 I enjoyed your post a lot and relate to it as I also used Turkle in my exercise in terms of "being always on", you're right I agree that it can be too easy sometimes for some people to let everyone know what they are doing and when they are doing it! I also agree with you in terms of "missing out" if you are not on social media and miss out on specific updates or information from friends as I can almost relate to that! Keep posting! Eilish2 (discuss • contribs) 00:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Eilish2 Eilish2 (discuss • contribs) 00:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #3 Information Overload
Hi ,

I like the last point you are making about the Fear of Missing Out, it is a phenomenum of our Information Age and can develop a serious illness and threat to ourselves as it is mentioned in the very recent text "Negative consequences from heavy social networking in adolescents: The mediating role of fear of missing out" by in the Journal of Adolescence, published on the first of Febraury 2017 (available as e-source). And the overlaod of infromation created by the SNS has a great impact on it.

Still, I would be interested on how you deal with the information overload you are facing everyday and why? And looking at the other questions for this exercise:

'''How do you deal or rather manage your workflow with our Wiki Project currently going on and progressing further? Was ist easy or difficult for you to embed this task in your daily routine/structures (if you have something similar)as it demands a continuous engagement from us?'''

--DesireeSophie (discuss • contribs) 22:56, 1 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


 * Posts of this standard do not address the assignment requirements. They offer little to no engagement with the concerns of the module. They are poorly written and comments are often extremely brief or missing. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.


 * Reading and research:
 * appreciably deficient evidence of critical engagement with set materials;
 * lack of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * poor articulation and lack of support in argument;
 * lack of evidence of critical thinking (you tended to not taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, nor did you support this position in discussion);
 * lack of evidence of relational thinking (you tended to not make connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, nor did you support these connections in discussion);
 * lack of evidence of independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * No evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * No engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Little or no use of discussion pages