User talk:Mmmorgaine

Hi I'm mmmorgaine, part of a wikibooks project, tutor is a cool dude Mmmorgaine (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1 What Makes a Good Wiki?
Online collaboration is a vital tool for creating a neutral and proof-checked wiki, as well as being featured in various social medias. For example, Facebook features various ways to work in online collaboration such as group chats and group pages which allow multiple people to discuss and post at the same time. Interactive options such as polls are also made readily available, as well as options for live chats in group calls. However, sites like Facebook lack the option for people to work simultaneously on the same post, as each user is restricted to their own account as a singular way of posting, which can cause a spam of repeated or even incorrect information posted. Wikis, however, do not face these problems as any member can edit any page at any time, proving to be a qualitative feature. Mmmorgaine (discuss • contribs) 23:29, 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.


 * Poor. Among other things, poor entries may just offer links without real comment or apparent point. They may offer nothing more than poor-quality synopsis or description of material of dubious relevance. They may have serious clarity problems (including dead links, random graphics) which affect comprehension (or even worse, admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement). They might be off-topic, private trivia, or of unclear relevance. The wiki markup formatting will be of a poor standard.


 * This post is at the upper end of this grade band, but I ought to clarify that obviously a lot of this grade descriptor isn't of immediate relevance here. A little improvement will go a long way to attaining a higher mark. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and (especially for this, perhaps, the Understanding) criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets. Less instrumentally, and more in relation to this particular post I think the issue (as well as in your comments) is that you need to write more - the way the you build detail into your argument is to explore the ideas to hand, and attempt to solicit engagement from others in discussion. 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 – these are very brief. Remember that the comments are "worth" as much as posts themselves. The reason for this is not only to help encourage discussion (a key element of wiki collaboration!) but also to get you to reflect upon your own work. This can all, of course be used to fuel ideas that might form part of your project work.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Mmmorgaine, definitely agree that user collaboration is vital to the success of a platform such as wiki*edia. In answer to your comments about its shortfalls compared to Facebook, I would say that Facebook has an edge in terms of group communication due to having a real-time messenger client. As I wrote in my talk page, I also think Facebook suffers from Lévy's 'filter bubbles' idea more than any other social media. In terms of qualitative content, I don't think there could be much disagreement that Wikis provide far more of this than Facebook, Twitter or Instagram, despite not being as interactive for the vast majority of users. LewisCollie (discuss • contribs) 19:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

In agreement with the previous comment, instant messenger on Facebook definitely aids workflow and productivity for small groups of people when sharing information. Also in agreement with Mmmorgaine, there are huge qualitative differences in the information shared on Wikipedia compared to that on social media. The audience which information is shared to makes a huge difference as on social media, posts are usually directed at friends and family or in some cases made specifically with the goal of going viral. This means that information may be extremely biased or exaggerated when shared on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, where as with Wikipedia there is no specific group of people to aim the post at, it's main goal is to be informative. Emmamchristie (discuss • contribs) 02:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought your post made an interesting nod to the idea that the availability to edit wikis aids accuracy. In my brief experiences of the site, I would agree that the social norm here is to strive for objectivity and those who have an agenda other than this deviate. Lucystewpid (discuss • contribs) 22:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your post as you have stated the upsides of Facebook in terms of its interactive content. You have given examples such as group chats, polls etc. I also agree with you on the fact that you stated Facebook restricts numerous users to work on the same post at the same time. Despite the fact I do not have any previous experience of Wikipedia or Wikibooks, I agree that they both seem to appear to offer the facility for numerous people to go in and edit and make changes to one singular post. Eilish2 (discuss • contribs) 12:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Eilish2 Eilish2 (discuss • contribs) 12:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2 Visibility and Data Trails
I have what I'd consider to be a relatively normal online presence for someone my age, however I do favor certain platforms over others. Out of all my social media accounts, I spend the majority of my time on Facebook, which is also the site where my visibility is highest. By viewing my profile, anyone can see my date of birth and where I've worked, gone to school and lived. However, not all this information is correct. As a joke between my friends - and an internet meme from 2013 - my work place is set to 'Misha at Mishapocalypse', and one of my places of education is 'Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry', which shows a way to use technology as an extension of self expression. I have my phone number set to private so only I can view it, however my posts are made more public by allowing my friends and friends of friends to view my posts. I chose this privacy setting as I am comfortable with people I know seeing anything I post on Facebook, and their friends might wish to see pictures their friends have been tagged in. i know this as I can view my privacy settings in the settings menu of Facebook, and can alter them at any pint I see fit. I don't post anything on Facebook that I wouldn't say or show someone in person and due to that I don't mind anyone seeing what I post. However, one thing that causes worry to my privacy on Facebook is their advertisements. For example, over the weekend I was browsing through New Look and clicked on some of their tops to get a better look. A couple days later, the exact same tops came up in an add on Facebook. This has happened to me several times with various clothing tops, and it unsettles me that sites not owned by Facebook are sharing my information with them, even as far as across different devices. Digital Trends discusses this matter in an article, detailing how sites do this by "sending cookies to various devices in the same area. If the cookies reveal patterns of behavior on multiple devices, it “triangulates” the position of multiple devices with the same owner, and begins a targeted ad campaign." (Knibbs, 2013). Whilst there are options to opt out of targeted advertisement, and it does unsettle me the majority of the time, there has been an instance where I'd forgotten the site I found a particular dress I was planning to buy, and the Facebook adds brought it up again in a beneficial manner.

Snapchat is where my privacy is at its highest, as there is no public pictures of me or information on where I live, and I have never publicly posted my username or encouraged people to add me - I only have people I directly socialise with, as it seems pointless to have people I don't regularly communicate with on such an app that's pure focus is for messaging. Following this, Twitter would be my next social media with the highest privacy due to the soul fact that I hardly ever use it, therefore not posting any personal information apart from my name and profile picture.

My Instagram is somewhere in between the privacy of Facebook and Twitter. Whilst I do not post as regularly as I do on Facebook, and there are no text posts on Instagram, I d have my privacy settings set to public as I often post photographs of my drawings or paintings onto the site which I encourage people I have not met to see.

References: Knibbs, K. (2013). Digital Trends. Retrieved 14th February, 2017, from http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/seriously-internet-online-ads-can-trail-you-across-devices/

Mmmorgaine (discuss • contribs) 23:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments of Wiki Exercise #2
Hey, I read through and I felt you made some very valid and interesting points. I like how you discussed the 'self expression' use of social media, such as jokingly suggesting Hogwarts as a place of study, whilst also mentioning that you tend not to include real examples of private information as to avoid anybody abusing your details. I did find it curious how Snapchat is the social media that you keep most private, from my past experiences, and from my friends experiences, we tend to be most lax on it, as we tend to happily 'snap' anyone who tends to add us. I did enjoy reading it however if I had one piece of advice I would say to try and divide you paragraphs a bit more, in my opinion it looks neater. Great stuff though!Harry1875 (discuss • contribs) 15:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mmmorgaine! I came to leave comment on your exercise after you left comment on mine highlighting the differences in our use of social media. I thought it was interesting, especially in vein of this, that we had both taken on the particularly niche topic of filling out forms on these media platforms to contain jokes or references instead of true information. I certainly agree with your suggestion that this is an extension of the users self expression, though I think it's also worth exploring if you think memes add or subtract from this function. You noted that your workplace is a meme from 2013, and I would argue that setting your school to be that of the one from a magical, fictional reality is a meme as well. I recall that when I was younger, the majority of people I went to school with had filled out their place of education in that exact same way. I did it also, though not a dedicated Harry Potter fan, just because it seemed like a funny and interesting addition to my profile. I question whether this was an authentic extension of my self expression, or simply a desire to participation in something no matter how trivial on a societal level. It could be a shout to explore this function of memes, if you concede that it exists? Not disagreeing with you, just a suggestion that could perhaps strengthen or add another layer to what is already a well written collection of ideas.

Also, to answer the question you brought up on my page as well as in this exercise, I do often notice adverts for products I have viewed or even purchased online. I thought it was surprising you seemed unsettled by it, although I suppose you are in every right to be. I think the first time I noticed it I was probably quite taken aback, but over time I came to accept it as part of the nature of social media and never really thought about it in depth. Lucystewpid (discuss • contribs) 11:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3 Information Overload
The sheer immense amount of information available online is an overwhelming volume, with Gareth Mitchel from Science Focus estimating there to be well over 1,200 petabytes (1.2 million terabytes). I tend to use ad blockers to block out any unwanted distractions on many sites, however that is not always full proof, and I disable ads on sites like YouTube so the creators still can profit from my views. By searching anything into google you get a tsunami of results, and to narrow these down I include more specific wording in my searches as well as using quotations to select key words, therefore only articles/websites including all these set words will appear. My workflow is stunted at times on Wikibooks as there is no instant messaging, and instead I am left to refresh the page to see if there have been any new contributions to the discussion, then the other user will have to do the same for my reply. To improve this workflow my colleagues and I are using instant messenger and face to face conversations to establish a plan, before posting about it on the discussion page to keep a record of our conversations. Due to this, the information overload of Wikibooks is a negative factor as it can cause confusion and repetition between users, however it does remain useful in terms of presenting discussed information in professional like manner.

Mmmorgaine (discuss • contribs) 00:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #3
Hi Morgaine, I find your post really interesting about how you mention there is no instant messenger on the Wikibooks, and I agree it is very frustrating. It is strange though how we have started to live our lives fully expecting people to be available online all the time. I was reading the readings for this week and in Danah Boyd's article 'Participating in the Always-On Lifestyle' she said something that really stuck with me. "My always-on-ness doesn't mea that I'm always-accessible-to-everyone" I couldn't agree more, just because I have my phone on me doesn't mean I actually reply to messages straight away. Some types of social media can be a chore, such as emails. I hate receiving lengthy emails which I need to reply to in great depth. These are the kinds of messages that I leave for a few days and then force myself to go back to them. Do you ever do this, or do you feel when you get a message you reply ASAP to get it out of the way? I should probably do the latter, as this is me getting distracted, procrastinating and wasting time. You said that when you go into google you get hundreds of results, and I get the same. This is why I like to use Google Scholar, because you are not only getting articles that are academically correct, but you can also filter your searches very specifically and only a select few options come up. In my post I said that I use an app called 'Forest', have you heard of it? I really like it as it takes the distractions away from me. What do you use? susannamahwes Susannamhawes (discuss • contribs) 13:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, I agree that whilst I always have my phone with me, I do not answer messages instantly 100% of the time. I too use Google Scholar, or sometimes just Google Books when searching for academic information. I haven't heard of the app 'Forest' before, but I might use it next time I'm needing to focus on work and not go on my phone as a distraction. Mmmorgaine (discuss • contribs) 19:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4 Wikibook Project Reflective Account
This is a reflective account of my wikibooks project where my group contributed to the chapter on The Hive Mind and Collective Intelligence, where I will assess the collaborative nature of the wiki process online, and how we tackled sharing this process offline in our face-to-face group discussions. To fully form a critical reflection of this project I will address how we interacted with the various features of wikibooks and how they benefited or hindered our project.

Sharing resources, ideas, links and feedback:

The 'Discussion' page of our chapter came in great use to share resources, ideas, links and feed back. We created various headings to separate one type of information from another, such as separate plannings for both groups working on the chapter, a group discussion, listed readings and a section on formatting images, tables ect. This proved a huge benefit to the project as it made it easy to interact with all members working on the chapter and to see everyone's ideas written out coherently.

Maintaining engagement with the themes and concerns of the module:

We successfully maintained engagement with the themes and concerns of the module by referencing many of the readings recommended during lectures and found on the resource list of the module. Ahead of beginning work on the actual chapter page we decided what topics we would cover and who would cover them, ensuring we would all stay on topic and cover all the relevant information without going on any unnecessary tangents.

Writing for a small, supportive audience in a research environment:

By knowing the audience we were writing for it gave us context of how deeply we should investigate into certain concerns of the chapter, with no need to dumb certain aspects down as we were writing for an academic audience.

Practical application of the principles of peer-review, discussion and debate:

Being able to access all chapters of the book, as well as a communal 'Discussion' page proved another benefit for this project. By being able to interact with other groups, it allowed for a collaborative resource for asking and answering questions to do with using a platform that many of us are not familiar with.

Face-to-face discussions:

Despite the interactions wikibooks provides, it was at teams easier to plan in face-to-face discussions or even group chats as these would provide instant replies and collaboration without the need to reload or a page or the problem of two people editing a page at the same time. After planning in person, we would then put an account of what we decided onto the wikibooks page as to keep a copy that could be referred to anyone who could not attend the meeting.

In relation to the critical concept of Interactivity: In his book 'Communications, Cultural and Media Studies The Key Concepts', John Hartley lists Interactivity as a key concept which offers an intellectual insight into collaborative knowledge-building, and the peer-review process. This is seen throughout the project as interactivity was a necessary and beneficial practise for the project. It allowed us to make a well structured plan for the project, as well as give each other pointers and advice of how to improve our sections.

References:

Mmmorgaine (discuss • contribs) 20:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #4
I very much enjoyed reading your personal experience of Wikibooks and your formatting for this account is really cool too! I agree with that point you make about the Discussion page a very useful place where the group could interact and contribute ideas to the larger book. The notion you bring up regarding the type of audience we were writing for is another pretty interesting concept and probably one I could have thought about a bit further. Finally I agree about your final account about face-to-face interactions with the group, along with social networking sites messengers, being the best way to communicate between the group as we could directly see who was attempting to contact us and we would get the push notification to our phones etc to act on the interaction. All in all I too agree with a lot of the things you speak about in your account and it offered me some food for thought when I too think back on the Wikibook experince. Aidancc (discuss • contribs) 10:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * Satisfactory. Your contribution to the book page gives a satisfactory brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a fair range of concepts associated with your subject, and an effort to deliver critical definitions. There is evidence that you draw from relevant literature and scholarship, however your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is slightly lost, perhaps due to a variable depth of understanding the subject matter or over reliance on rote learning. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a somewhat circumscribed 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