User talk:Pierreengel

Student at the University of Stirling. This is part of a class project.

Wiki Exercise #4: Collaborative Essay Reflective Account
The module FMSU9A4 has given me the opportunity to not only discover Wikibooks (which was unknown to me before), but also to take part of it and understand its purpose.

First of all, we should make one thing, Wikibooks is not like any other platform I have used before; meaning that it has nothing to do with any Social Media that we could be acquainted with, such as Facebook for example. However, we could say that, in a way, it offers the same “services”: we can on both platforms publish posts, edit and comment on other people’s stuff, but Wikibooks has no will to be related with the same social connotation that Facebook has. Wikibooks is, in my opinion, a way more serious platform which is to be used in an academic manner. You can not be distracted by any other information on Wikibooks, the only information you get are the ones you are looking for, which is one of the big plus of Wikibooks. However, it has some perks and the biggest one is probably the difficulty of the platform. By that I mean that it’s hard to get the hang of it at first, when you post something or edit a post, I personally had to google how to do some maneuvers (like how to add a link, or other things). Furthermore the platform is not very intuitive, but once you understand it, it becomes easier to navigate.

Wikibooks does indeed emphasize visibility, anyone can contribute to one’s post and therefore it reaches a wider audience. Plus by a simple click you can get on anyone’s profile and see what their intention is and also track all the contributions, comments and posts they have made since their subscription to Wikibooks, thus you can easily discover new things.

The platform can surely also help facilitate the collaborative essay research, by its easy to make comments and creations of discussions; posting new ideas and sharing them with our fellow students is easy to do, and it can lead to a discussion. Unfortunately, due to our lack of organizations and other factors, my group wasn’t able to enjoy these benefits and we ended up using Facebook for our collaborative essay research.

It is without a doubt that we can say that Wikibooks foster a community: it is easy to find users with similar interests, you simply need type a keyword on the navigator and you can find pages related to the subject you’re looking for; the rest is made naturally, you can discuss to the creator of these pages, or even decide to edit their content or also collaborate on a same page (as we did for our collaborative essay).

Online collaboration represents a digital commons because its aim is to spread or publish online information and also, and most importantly, its communal ownership, Wikibooks is about not focusing on who has to take credit and as said before considering it as a community. If everything works as planned, and all the group members decide to collaborate (which wasn’t the case of mine: one left the group, and the other decided not to collaborate in a fair manner), we should come to a piece of work created by combined owners.

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) 12:07, 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.

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.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – none undertaken. This would effectively halve your mark. There doesn’t seem to be any engagement with other people’s work at all, and so the briefs for the exercises are not fulfilled. 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.

General:
 * Reading and research: A little in the post that was included.
 * Argument and analysis: Some ability and insight shown in this regard, but the majority of exercises are missing, which is a pity.
 * Presentation: This was ok.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 10:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)