User talk:Nuriaj95

This is the user page talk for: nuriaj95 Nuriaj95 (discuss • contribs) 11:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

All my wiki exercises were done in my user talk page in wikipedia, but I just recently realised they had to be in wikibooks. I will just copy them. Here they are. All my comments on others work can be seen in the contribution's page of my user talk page.

Wiki Exercise #1: Educational Assignment.Screen Time
I would like to share The World in Photos This Week gallery from the magazine Foreign Policy. I think is a great compilation of the most important international issues happened within the last seven days, with a great quality and a useful context. They also have variety, freshness, and currency. The most interesting ones go from Iranian schoolgirls holding portraits of Iran's supreme leaders, during a celebration of the 37th anniversary of the day that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from exile in France; to an international Shakespeare troupe performing Hamlet at a theater in the Calais refugee camp in France. All happened this week and the Foreign Policy gallery shows us a window to see a little bit more of the world we have around us, from which we miss a lot of things everyday

Wiki exercise #2: Online visibility
I consider I am pretty visible online, as I have an account in all the main social media networks: Facebook,Instagram, Twitter, Linkedinhttps://www.google.co.uk/ and Google. There I have some privacy settings, to restrict what people see about me. In the case of Facebook, I start by not accepting people I don't know personally offline. My profile pictures are public, but everything else I post in the network is only available for friends I already have. Apart from that, I think that my public profile is much more visible than what I actually know, because almost anyone can access to my information, or save my pictures.

In the case of Instagram, it's much less private for me, also because I don't have there very private information or stuff. Anyone can follow me, and I can decide whether to follow back. Anyone can see my pictures, even if we are not friends or followers. I also can see the pictures of people I am not following in the case they don't have their profile private. As in Facebook, in my Instagram I post things about the people I am with, and about the places I've been.

Linkedin is more professional, anyone is able to see my profile, but I recieve a notification of who has seen it. I have it for a professional interest, and I can control exactly what people see about me. It is only about work experience, education and interests but it is a good network for connecting people of the same business.

I don't use Twitter very much. I think that is very useful for the interests that I have (news, current affairs, etc). It is also helpful for connecting wellknown or famous people. The privacy is restricted to what you tweet or retweet, because that information is public for everyone. Your visibility depends on your amount of followers and the impact you can have over them.

To sum up, the kind of information that is available about me online is my name, where am I from, where I live and study, what are my main interests and who my friends and family are. I use to post pictures of events, good moments, trips, beautiful landscapes...etc. I have chosen to share it with my friends, or people I know offline, and my family or other contacts. I think that that information about me should be accesible only for the people I care something about, not strangers. Even though, I follow people (in Twitter for example), who I don't know for real. Finally, I think that only a little of the information that is about me online it can be controled by me. It is said that "what you don't want people to know or spread, don't post it on the Internet", because you never know who can finally see you and the things about you that are online.

Nuriaj95 (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiExercise #3: Information Overload!
The digital age has a lot of advantages, like plenty of information, access to any issue that happens around the world, facts, theories, declarations, pictures, videos, documents, reports or articles. Just with the social media you can be informed of what is occurring anywhere. But this is also something that can collapse our brains, as we are receiving lots of information. It seems that Google has all the answers, but we can start looking for something very specific and we can end finding a lot of information about many items related. We have all this access not only in the devices of our daily life (televisions, computers, street advertising...etc), but also in our pockets, with our smart phones. I think that is not possible to deal with all that amount of information available, instead of that, what we do is search or pay attention on what we have more interest, and skip other distractions. However, we could be pretty distracted anywhere. Most times happened to me that I was looking for something to do a research and I got distracted by the social media or other things in the web. This "information overload", as it is said by Martha Ross in a post of the San Jose Mercury News, it is one of the many concerns of Daniel Levitin, a McGill university professor of psychology and behavioral neuroscience. He lays out in his new book, "The Organized Mind" that we're bombarded daily with the informational equivalent of 175 newspapers and have a half-million books' worth of words stored on our computers. But the 21st-century brain can't take all that in, he says. The professor explains that our brains want to pay attention to only one thing at a time, and trying to absorb so much information comes at a cost: The neurons are living cells that become fatigued if we work them too hard.

Taking this into account, I decide not try to arrive to everything, but to what I think it is interesting or that I think I need to know. I consider that is the only way to not get mad by the huge amount of headlines and inputs that we can receive through all the media and advertising.

Nuriaj95 (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
During this past weeks I had the opportunity to develop some work as a wikipedia user, both individual and as a part of a group, so I had the chance to obtain experience in the so-called collective intelligence that we can find in our world wide web. According to the work of Banaji and Buckingham (2003) about the Civic Web, I think that in fact exists a tension in the network between active and passive users, among the apolitical and those who believe they can achieve political change through Internet; and finally between well-informed users and those who are not. I have experienced this view as a young user, and with users of my generation. Contrary to what some think, I agree with Clay Shirky (2010) about the ideas about Cognitive Surplus. Developing work on Wikipedia, both individually and as a group, I have noticed that as a young digital generation we want to change the world, also contribute with our grain of sand, and feel heard and recognized; and that the actions of groups add up much more than the aggregated acts of individuals. So as Shirky says, people are much more willing than it seems to help in the construction of knowledge, and they want to share it with others.

This also corresponds with people that have received the proper education to understand the world in which we live, and that can bring their point of view while interacting with others. It is people who know where to find the information needed, and they give a proper use. The work I have developed as a member of the largest digital encyclopedia has been very rewarding. At first, one can not consider writing a book on a topic in which he is not deeply specialized. Now, we have seen that this is possible in the so-called Civic Web. In conclusion, I consider that this way of working is much more effective because it can address the issues with many different points of view. You also have the feeling of being useful while contributing to the universal knowledge, and with free and simple access. I think that that is a huge step for Humanity.

Regarding the project in Wikibooks (our group did the part of "The Future" on the issue of cultural and technological determinism); I have found that we have been pretty efficient when working as users in the project. It is easier to organize the work online, and everything is clearer when you write it down. More ideas and related topics emerge, which in turn they are available on the Internet, and the focus of the conversation is better maintained. The only drawback is the time difference if not the entire group is connected at that moment, or if you have not arranged a particular time so that everyone is connected to discuss the issue. In our group we did not meet all together, and we basically discussed the issue and split the tasks through the discussion page of the Wikibook. However, I think there are some points in the organization of work which are best done in a face-to-face group. So while I recognize the advantages of group work through digital or online means, I think the best option is to alternate them. One or more meetings of the whole group, depending on the size of the project you want to do, will help supplement the discussions that then arise through the web. It will also encourage teamwork and belonging to a group that hopes you to fulfill your part of the job. Similarly, in discussions in person, you can see more clearly the roles they take everyone in the team, who runs the rest, and who has a preference for certain subjects.

Ultimately, I think we've done a good job, but it should have been, in our case, more unity in the group to improve the final result. Otherwise it just an individual work; and that is the advantage of the web that we must seize: it is an individual work while at the same time is collective.

Nuriaj95 (discuss • contribs) 17:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment
Hi, it is a really good elaboration of your experience during our Wikibook project and the way you connected them with some of the theories we discussed in the lecture. Especially your connection with Clay Shirky´s point that we want to change the world and participate ambitiously in sharing our knowledge. That is definitely one of the most remarkable experiences I made in many different ways during the project. First of all, the discussion page debates or exchanges were full of knowledge and information and the overall engagement was awesome. Due to this, we had a really dynamic exchange and important outcomes. The notion of "collective intelligence" was noticeable throughout the whole project. Besides the final entries on the chapter, we shared interesting stuff for our topic or useful references and broaden everyone´s horizons. If you notice that your engagement and traffic behind such a project goes on really well you are even more motivated to participate. Nevertheless, I would agree with you that it was difficult to time the online discussions because sometimes I had to wait more than two days for a response. Maybe we should have organized certain chat hours during the project to solve this kind of problem.--Esser.h (discuss • contribs) 21:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello there, You have a great reflection to the project. I also agree with Clay Shirky (2010) about the ideas about Cognitive Surplus. I definitely think that younger generations are learning to be use their free time better for smarter acts than consumptive ones. Social media really does possess a power that is able to change society. I also agree that this project proved our understanding of "collective intelligence". Because of our collective efforts, our groups were able to produce a page that showed more detail than we could have ever produced alone. At least in my group, the work was divided up nicely, so that we all shared the work equally. It was also nice to have a somewhat large group to share the decision making equally. Overall, the online discussions were hard to work with because not everyone in the groups would check the discussion page as often as needed. Engagement was such a huge part of this project, so meeting in person was really beneficial. Georgiamattie (discuss • contribs) 03:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
Some excellent, fairly extensive contribs to sections on cultural determinism, and history of the concept. Some references to historical thinkers and the inclusion of interwiki and external links useful.

Wiki Exercises


 * Excellent. Among other things, these entries will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. They will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. They will address the assignment tasks in a thoughtful way. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts. They will be informed by serious reading and reflection, are likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives an excellent brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is an excellent 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 an excellent range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, clearly grounded on close familiarity with concepts and ideas encountered on the module
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material through evidence of close familiarity with a wide range of evidence
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument featuring appreciable depth of understanding
 * good level of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * good level of evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections in discussion);
 * evidence of appreciable independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content suggests minimally sufficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Acceptable engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Limited reflexivity and creativity, and a somewhat insecure management of discussion pages

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 14:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)