User talk:Rachelmm0037

Hi please remember to a) create your User Page and say something about yourself and the class project. and b) your User Discussion Page, so you can start posting your wiki exercises.

Further, some tips You will see every time you sign something, you have dicuss|contribs after your name. The contribs bit is the most important. If you click it you will see a list of every sing edit you have ever made on wikibooks. You can view other people's contribs too. That's how. It's all time-stamped. As long as you remember to sign in to your wiki book account when editing. This is the most important element to remember. Even if you don't use the tildes~ the wiki still documents your contribs, so for example, when editing content page in to your essay, you're not required to sign the tildes~, but the wiki knows you've edited in any case, and it's traceable. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiki 2
(1)	Baron, N. S. 2008. 'Always on: Language in an online and mobile world.' Chapter 10, 'The people we become, the cost of always being on.' Oxford University Press PP: 213-223. (2) Baron depicts the societal effect of the internet culture has on the way we interact with each other and the consequences of this. (3) The chapter aims to persuade the reader the negative effect of the always on culture has, even the chapter name 'the cost of always being on' highlights how Baron feels we are sacrificing interactions in favour of always being on. Which is supported through many references throughout and survey evidence backing up a continuous argument. (4) The chapter discusses how always being on has created a society filled with ego monsters, people who are inefficient because of its distraction, those who will either avoid being by themselves or are lonely and less productive. (5) This chapter was very useful, and I will definitely read further into the book as it's filled with reliable sources and surveys. (6) However, the chapter was one sided and negative towards the always on culture there was no balance, so to the book was released in 2008 making it quite an old reference now. (7) Overall this chapter was informative and clearly highlights the negative attributes of the always on culture. (8) This chapter will fit into my research when discussing the negative side to the always on culture and how it has altered the way we socialise.

Reflective Account
On reflection, upon the collaborative essay and using the Wikipedia platform additionally with Wikibooks. In terms of what kind of platform Wikibooks is and Wikipedia are as whole. The sites are pretty dated layout wise and are a reminder of the early ages of the internet and though Wikipedia's content and information are constantly being updated/ edited. The website itself is stuck in the early 00s. Which overall makes it difficult to navigate and the screen layout is overwhelmingly cluttered adding to the unenthusiastic style of holding information. Personally, Wikipedia is a prime example of the negative side of information overload, the page is held together like a massive report file, the information is displayed like one big admin task. Though edits need to be approved some of the information is wrongly approved and incorrect information is uploaded. Furthermore, the information that is changed is counted and a number is held in brackets beside it, this can range from 3 to as high as 60 times. Though it could be argued this is just keeping information up to date, but can we really trust information that's been altered 60 times? Though this can make it visibly clear that information has been altered and is up to user whether to trust the content.

In regard to visibility the platform provides a plethora of information from celebrities to academics to historic events, mathematic equations and many more. If you need to know anything it's probably on Wikipedia in terms of facts and figures the page provides profile pages to accounts each mirroring the same layout in a check box display of information. Though this makes information black and white and things are shown to be edited due to the contribs feature. So to, the time stamps are helpful in putting editing in a time frame. In terms of the discussion pages, Wikibooks itself gives people a platform to group together and converse over one topic with a more personal opinion style of information sharing. This in turns helps facilitate collaborative research, as people can share ideas by responding and commenting on other user's discussion pages. Although this can become information overload, though in a positive light as this means people are actively engaging educating themselves and others on topics they feel passionate about. As a result of this a lot of voices talk at once, in which people are either very openly opinionated more so than in person, as they are behind a computer screen or people refrain from sharing their true thoughts as their posts are being published publically. Ultimately, these are all factors that foster a community and the style in which communities communicate.

Consequently, this would highlight how the platform gives user the freedom to voice their opinion but only through the Wikibooks discussion pages but can share their knowledge on both Wikipedia and Wikibooks through commenting and editing. However, there are limitations as edits have to be approved and no room for bias on Wikipedia's main page. Although the discussion pages are utilised in a conversational tone which offers some form of online emancipation. However I feel if the website was updated it would populate more interest and gain users to contribute to discussions.

Your reflective account is very interesting. I never thought about how outdated the format is. I have used so many blog sites in my past and this is what they are all like. Even as I type now the code based formula is something very normal to me but indeed is rather strange and complicated. Changing the material is indeed a big problem with Wikibooks and Wikipedia, I mean right now I could change your own reflective account as much as I want. Although, the quick ability to change does have some advantages. If an athlete won a medal or any type of accomplishment then the Wiki platform would be able to click update just as the moment arrived.

I agree that the web layout and updating style is rather bland. It comes across rather clinical. This makes me struggle to get enthused about updating my discussion page and commenting on others. It is difficult to read the work then edit it then remember the correct code to use and where to put your addition to not upset others. It can become a very complicated process.

Information overload is definitely something that can be risky on Wikibooks. I find that I come to the wiki platforms to learn about one thing; as you said its the primary source for random knowledge. However, after learning the one thing like "Where the Olympics are being held", I go deeper and deeper. Hopping from page to page I will end up knowing what athlete represented Jamaica in 2012 and how they are now married with two children! That is the main problem with having so much access to information, we can constantly learn and use it, but, it becomes too much for us to handle. Always on culture is a main factor in information overload. We are no longer able to separate from our media and its devices and are constantly gaining new information whether we want to or not.

I see you also like that Wiki platforms allow online freedom, I believe the same. If you think of Facebook, Twitter or Instagram, users will change what they post almost a dozen times before they show it to the public domain. I know that I am guilty of that myself, something about achieving a large number of likes or comments is satisfying; probably because I know if I didn't then people may judge or laugh at me for my lack of friends or lack of a following. However on Wikibooks you can comment what you like as this is exactly what everyone else does!


 * 1) Amw00036 (discuss • contribs) 10:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

(#Rachelmm0037 (discuss • contribs) 11:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC))


 * 1) Rachelmm0037 (discuss • contribs) 10:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

This chapter seems very interesting to read. 'Always on' is an ever present concern in this new technological world. I would like to read more of the book due to the fact it is only based on the negatives as this authors positives could be an interesting read. I wonder if it will come across in the same passionate argument the negative sides did.


 * 1) Amw00036 (discuss • contribs) 10:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you 'Amw00036,' for this feedback! As you have said always on is a 'present concern in this new technological world.' I couldn't agree more especially the effect upon our society. More so when we compare the technological advancement throughout time as this chapter elaborates on. Indeed the chapter I read was very passionately against technology however I do feel the passion was then misconstrued with bias, by only giving one opinion.
 * 1) Rachelmm0037 (discuss • contribs) 17:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

That can sometimes be the issue with researchers and their passion about a specific topic; they can't see the bigger picture! Being so against technology could be an issue especially with the changing world as not much can be done to stop it. I am going to look into this author for my essay and see if he can move past his bias in other works and show both sides in a more fair manner.
 * 1) Amw00036 (discuss • contribs) 10:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Rachel! The topic you chose to write about in your annotated bibliography is really interesting. I can see that supporting your research for you collaborative essay. I truly do like the idea of it focusing on the consequences because times have changed so much, and us as a newer generation might not see the consequences just yet. Many predict consequences and the effects of always being online. In addition the chapter sound extremely interesting, as it covers so many aspects like the individual ego monster and becoming inefficient and procrastinating. It sounds like have cover a lot of ground regarding the the negative aspect. It also interesting to hear about a one sided argument. Most books or articles try to be objective but from the sounds of your article it seem to cover predominantly the negative aspects of the Always on Culture. Chrisalwayson (discuss • contribs) 00:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the 'always-on' culture makes us all lose a part of ourselves in the end and so I enjoyed this read! But I do agree with you that the book seems to be more than a little biased and therefore one would get value from reading some newer research and opinions into the topic in order to balance their research out so I'm glad to see you picked up on this and are intending to do so! I think I may look up the author for our collaborative essay as this writing may be useful to show a less-advanced side of the argument. I do feel as if the author of your research may be limiting himself with his lack of willingness to benefit from technology in his life and this, too, saddens me greatly as I fully believe that peoples lives can indeed be benefited greatly with the use of technology in moderation- the key word here being "moderation" that the author doesn't seem to believe in. I believe that one can take good things in moderation in order to improve our lives without the addition taking over our lives. I also found the additional feedback on this post useful in order to enhance my understanding of the ways in which we can respond to media subjectively!

Digitalmediafiend (discuss • contribs) 17:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This chapter is interesting and relevant to the society we live in. We live in a society where we are constantly connected to the internet. Like you said, we are so connected that it has created some issues with the way we interact with each other. For example, we give up having real face to face conversations to post, check notifications, like photos on our social media accounts. I believe it is important that Baron focuses on the negative effects of always-on culture because many people are not aware of the implications that the always-on culture has. Celine Hunt (discuss • contribs) 22:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Celine thank you for commenting !I'm glad you think my source is relevant. Yes you too right we really have no way of disconnecting from the internet even if we delete all social media we still have to use the internet and it's difficult to become untraceable as our friends and family post photos with us online. And yes to add to what you've said through and the outlets you've mentioned as to how we communicate, this in turn means we have less conversations in person as we can do it instantly online. Indeed I do agree with you it's important to have a balanced view, though this source is very biased it's useful to hold against other sources and accept there is negative effects of the always on culture.

Thanks for commenting, your comment has been overall very positive and useful for myself in terms of its coherency for others to read, even more so that you've enjoyed reading my source and the comments on my page were useful for your own research. Fully agree with you on the stance of him limiting himself with a negative view towards technology, especially as it has done so much good for society its ignorant to disregard technology. Like you've said moderation is key! In relation to another discussion page I posted on a source stated that we should monitor our time on technology which is all part of enjoying technology in moderation.

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. See below.

•	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 on the discussion pages, although what has clawed back a few marks for you is the fact that you were commenting on User Discussion pages and suggesting content for the collaborative essay. This has probably saved you from failure overall.

•	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


 * See above comment.

•	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.


 * You gave a decent account of yourself where evidence shows..

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:33, 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.

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.


 * there is 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.


 * in addition, 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 – there were a few of these activities, but were on the whole with one or two exceptions, a little 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.

General:
 * Reading and research: There is some evidence of this (e.g. your annotated bibliography entry) but not really much else that evidences wider reading. This leads to some rather serious issues in that your ability to critically reflect and engage is lost, as you do not seem to have any critical frames of reference – see note below.


 * Argument and analysis: To be honest, the “reflective account” which I take to be your response to the #4 exercise, is quite bizarre – it is descriptive rather than analytic, and is not so much reflective as a list of rather transactional details that do not address the brief for this task. It seems to completely avoid addressing what the brief is asking for.


 * Presentation: This needs work.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 10:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)