User talk:Raquelita96

This is the discuss page for user Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs).

I will be using this to register my work on the Wiki Book project and also to conduct some of my educational assignments.

Please feel free to comment on my work here.

Wiki Exercise #1: Educational Assignment
 Beauty Vlogging and Make-up Guru Culture 

As of recently it seems that Youtube Make-up Guru culture (or make-up vloggers) has exploded and expanded to a very large proportion of today's digital media, and consequently, present society. It is most likely that you already have heard about this phenomenon, or perhaps the names Zoella or Tanya Burr (among many, many others) might sound familiar to you. They all seem to have many common features: cheery, sensible and neat young women who upload (almost) daily videos or 'vloggs' in an attempt to make a place for themselves in the over-saturated beauty genre and culture of the new media. They are often referred to as role models and looked up to as older sisters or best friends by their loyal audience, who will most often mindlessly accept any advice or make up brand recommendation they give on their videos.

Having this type of public platform for expression and cult leadership could offer the potential to demolish beauty standards and expand the concept of beauty itself, and yet at the same time it could reinforce the negative values that arise from the beauty industry (such as reinforcing the idea that in order to look 'fierce' and 'confident' you must wear make up, or Zoella's allegedly cute and sweet advice to 'stay safe and be pretty' on many of her videos, that suggests and promotes the idea that young girls are still, at this day and age, being told to prioritise pretty over smart, confident and ambitious), specifically in a digital space mainly constructed of a vulnerable, teenage audience.

Trends Resulting From Make-up Guru Culture
Trends like the 'pretty or ugly?' videos (in which teens would uploaded videos of themselves asking whether the audience thought they were 'pretty' or 'ugly') or the most recent '#dontjudgechallenge' trend (in which young people would upload videos at their 'worst' physical appearences, particularily with drawn-on modifications that imitate facial features that are socially-perceived as 'ugly', and a second video of them at their 'best', most likely wearing loads of flattering make up and posing, almost like they are advertising themselves as a 'product', or what is described as an "overwhelming stench of very obvious, very ugly narcissism" ) have particularly reinforced the negative aspect of the consequences of make-up guru culture.

As if teenagers did not undergo enough pressure involving their body's physical appearance (like for instance, the still-growing obsession with thigh gaps, which advertisements and media tend to support for their own advantage, like the very controversial 'beach body ready' ad campaign, new trends and obsessions concerning physical appearance modification through make up continue to arise, creating a toxic, problematic environment that pressures teenagers to strive for absolute, unrealistic perfection, specifically after being influenced by their beauty guru role models. Trends like 'fake-tanning', 'contouring' or the even more-so ridiculous 'Kylie Jenner Lip Challenge' pressure teenagers and young people into creating an idealised version of themselves for self-promotion, self-affirmation and the attempt at achieving self-confidence in a strict, modern society that dictates the rules of beauty, and can result in many serious mental health disorders like anxiety and depression.

Trends like these, including the beauty guru obsession, can only result in the arising of the most controversial issues, like sexist, misogynistic 'memes' (such as the 'take her swimming on the first date', claiming that a girl wearing make-up is 'false advertisement' and thus calling them 'liars'), and YouTube videos, like YouTuber UhOhBro's videos (in particular, his very problematic and sexist 'YouTubers with No Make-up' video, in which he compares pictures of young girls wearing make up, to pictures of when they don't, claiming they look like 'Mormons' without it). Further negative issues on the beauty guru culture is the whitewashing of the community itself; the glorification of 'natural, radiant fair skin' and the obvious lack of People of Colour in the popularity charts within the community.

Online Identity and Vlogging
It is safe to say that there are both positive and negative effects of the make-up blogging culture, yet as it seems to become more and more popular, and while new techniques to 'better' oneself's appearance through make up develop, it seems as make-up guru culture could become a large pressure on vulnerable teenage girls who try more-so with every year that passes to achieve perfection and, quite literally 'purchase self-confidence' from the make-up industries that pay YouTubers to advertise their products to their audience. In this way, it is interesting to relate this to the subject of Online Identity and impression management and how it not only affects our online identities, but also our real identities. Having said this, we can also look at this the other way round, and understand how technological determinism has shifted 'YouTube culture' through technological advances, making it accessible for anyone to become a vlogger, and therefore, increasing the pressure on YouTube vloggers to upload daily, to always look their very best and to always be on top of every new trend; constantly managing their online identities, and being 'always-on'. And as likable as these YouTube celebrities might be, they surely are holding a very delicate and powerful tool on their hands that could have very serious effects on present and future society.

A link to a very interesting article on the same area of topic: https://thetartan.org/2016/1/25/forum/youtube-guru.

Please, do feel free to comment if you have an interesting thought, or point of view on the post, it would be very useful and interesting to hear it out!

--Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 18:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Comment

 * this post shows an enormous potential. You write very well, and your use of the wiki markup is quite advanced already - allows your work to be presented neat and orderly, with a clear sense that you have thought about what you want to express and how. There's a lot here, however, a bit lengthy - try to keep within the advised character count. It was useful that you related your post to the themes and concerns of the module e.g. anonymity and persona. There are some readings in the module outline lists which might have worked really well applied here too.


 * A post of this standard roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor:
 * 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.

RE: Comments on others’ work

 * You are supposed to write comments on two users' posts in order to fulfil the requirements of the brief. You seem to have only done this for one. Therefore you would have lost significant marks if this was an assessed exercise. As it stands, however, lots of potential in the comment you did leave - some content, scope and reference to module themes there, even though I think this could be made more explicit. Remember that your comments on other people's work is weighted as heavily as your own post when it comes to grades - I think that you could have made more of the format and included citation and links to sources in your comments in order to engage discussion GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the feedback and comments. It seems like there might have been a mix up with this, however. I did comment on two people's work (users Sleepyzoe and Gvg00001). This can be also seen in my contribution page, if you would like to check, both before the deadline. If there was a mix up please do let me know how to fix it. --Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 15:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Raquel - you are required to write two comments in response to other users' work for each exercise. This feedback is made in relation to Exercise #1 only i.e. you responded to Sleepyzoe. Your response to Gvg00001 is in relation to Exercise #2. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

i.e:

00:02, 19 February 2016 (diff | hist). . (+2,555)‎ . . User talk:Gvg00001 ‎ (→‎Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Online Footprint)

23:30, 18 February 2016 (diff | hist). . (+1,354)‎ . . User talk:Sleepyzoe ‎ (→‎Comments)

hope that clarifies matters.
 * That does clarify it, thank you very much. I just messed up while commenting and thought I was commenting on user Gvg00001's first wiki exercise. My bad. --Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 16:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 2: Educational Assignment (Visibility and Online Footprint)
As much as one might try to resist it, social media seems to always somehow make its way into our lives. Whether it is through the pressure inflicted by friends who are already on social media, advertising, or even the natural curiosity we all have to stick our noses in other people's lives to find out how they are doing, most people nowadays are a part of the “always-on” culture.

Personally, I have always tried to resist it, thinking it just 'wasn't for me', so I never really had to ask myself the question 'how visible am I online?'. On my first year of University I finally gave up and embraced most social medias, and I accepted that regardless of all the negative aspects of social media, the practicality and usefulness of it made it worth while.

Social media usage
I will first review each social media platform in which I have a presence, but also including the ones I used to be active on when younger.

MSN (messenger)
Where it all started. I believe I started at a very young age, I was perhaps 7 years old. This started mostly because of a cliché: everybody else had MSN, everybody else used it. I wanted to become a part of it, so I made up a (very,very silly) username and marveled at the online platform and it's messaging system. It was probably the only time in my life when I was 'marveled' at a social media platform, since it was something 'new and shiny'. However, like most things, it died out with the development of better, more complete version of a social media platform: Tuenti.

Tuenti
For most people reading this, they probably have never even heard of it. However, Tuenti was a very famous social media network in Spain. The 'Facebook' before Facebook. To have an account, you had to be invited by someone who already had one. In my school, it was the new obsession, and of course I felt like I needed to be a part of it. Mostly used throughout the most cringe-worthy part of our lives, everyone felt the need to take 'selfies' with deep quotes from celebrities. I did try to keep up with this one, but there was a certain type of demanding pressure to be always-on, always posting good-looking pictures of you, this 'management of the self' that really did make me uncomfortable, and I eventually stopped using it.

YouTube
Years later, I discovered YouTube and that was probably the downfall of it all. I became obsessed with 'YouTuber culture' and 'Vloggers', and I would check on it every single day. I had subscribed to about 100 YouTube accounts and I watched each video as soon as it was released, always eager to comment. I remember how it began: up until then I only used YouTube to watch Music Videos or viral videos, but I had a friend who showed me a video by a YouTuber, and I couldn't help but love the idea of Vlogging. I checked up on everybody's lives, on what they wanted to share with me. I sort of wanted to be like them, as well. I even tried making a vlog myself, but it never really worked. As of now, I still check on them from time to time, but I have long since been obsessed like I used to be. The good thing about it was I could comment all I wanted, but because I used a username, nobody had any particular information of myself, since I never gave it away, and I found some reassurance in the anonymity.

Instagram
My Instagram account started when I left for a month trip to the USA, and my friends wanted me to keep them posted, since I did not use Facebook, so I agreed to create one. I still use it, but not much at all, since I barely upload any pictures. I always seem to feel a bit shy and awkward at the time to post something, so I never really do, and I very rarely post any pictures of me for the same reason. Most of all, I use it to see what other people post, since photography is one of my interests. In this website the people that follow me are mostly people I know, since I try to keep it private and I only give my first name on my profile.

Tumblr
Sadly, I would say Tumblr is the online platform I use the most. When I created an account I did so because I really did want to become a part of 'something so wonderful', yet it seems I am now addicted to it and I open the tab/app for it multiple times per day. However I try to remain as private as I can in this platform, because I enjoy being a part of my interests within this platform anonymously, and I wouldn't enjoy the idea of many of the people I know, knowing what my username is, since I find some sort of reassurance in the feeling of not having to constantly feel the pressures of self-management through the anonymity of this platform. While I know a lot of people do like to do this, I personally don't give away any of my private information while using this platform.

Snapchat
Snapchat is probably my preferred social platform/messaging service there is. Again, I find it quite reassuring the fact that you can control who adds you as a friend, and therefore who sees the content you decide to post. In my opinion, it is a much more relaxed management, since what you decide to post anyway fades away after a couple of seconds, so there are no pressures demanding you to 'look good' since the pictures you take aren't permanent. Of course, there is the screen-shotting option, but in my experience, only close friends that I trust have done it as a joke, and nothing negative has come from it.

Facebook
I created a Facebook page years ago, but it was left inactive until I finally gave in when I had to go to University. I refused to use it because in my opinion, it was just another version of 'Tuenti', which I had refused to use at that time. However, I finally understood that Facebook was the platform mostly used by everyone I knew, the one in which they were the most active on, so it was my biggest shot at trying to contact them, rather than using other platforms. Pressures from family and friends trying to see how I was doing finally got me to post some pictures online. Facebook is probably the online platform in which most of my personal information is posted in, and I can't say I am still quite comfortable with this, which is why my privacy settings are set to the most 'private' you can get, and why I manage what I want to be posted there quite carefully. I normally use Facebook about once per week on average, to contact people or to see what they were up to, and to find out about my interests or events happening near me.

Conclusion
Whether I like it or not, I seem to spend quite a lot of time on social media platforms, and while I normally prefer to be as private as I can, I understand the advantages that come with the usage of social media platforms like Facebook, and why a lot of people don't mind sharing as much private information as they do. While I personally haven't had a good experience with social media in the past, it seems that every day I shift more towards the 'always-on' culture. And while I try to control the exposure of my personal information as much as I can, I am also aware that my online visibility is quite large and I could not possibly control all of it, which is why I restrict my use of public social media like Facebook.

--Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 12:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC).

Comments on exercise #2
Despite the variety and and quantity of social media that you have used it is interesting and rather impressive that you have still tried, and for the most part succeeded in keeping a level of anonymity online. The fact that you have chosen to keep your accounts private is quite significant in an online world where it is becoming harder and harder to minimize your digital footprint. Your determinism to stay anonymous especially on sites like Tumblr and Youtube is certainly a good idea for someone who likes to comment on posts as it is common for people who comment and post a lot of things are most likely to be trolled. Therefore it is a smart decision to stay as anonymous as possible. It is certainly true that just as you feel more comfortable snapchatting a photo of yourself on Snapchat is much simpler and less fear inducing than posting a photo of yourself on Instagram. As a result Snapchat is viewed as safer and friendlier than other social media options. No matter which social media account is used it is definitely a sensible decision to be anonymous wherever possible. Clarenotdanni (discuss • contribs) 03:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I find your comment about how you inwillingly spend a lot of time on social media. I believe a lot of users of social media are liking the online life less and less but are already addicted. Instagram and Youtube watchers are too curious about the life of their idols; they already know too much and want to know what happens next. The online lifestyle becomes addictive as a user not just a watcher. --Danninotclare (discuss • contribs) 23:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload!
With the advances in modern technology comes new development in the creating and sharing of information. It has been 40 years since Alvin Toffler, popularised the term 'information overload' , and it is nowadays more relevant than ever. Smartphones make it almost too easy for us to access any information displayed on the internet, and often enhance our daily participation in the 'always-on' culture. This type of immediate access and exposure to all of this knowledge can have some large repercussions in one's lifestyle, enough to alter someone's mental health.

Effects of the information overload
More often than not I find myself in a loop of procrastination due to the distracting nature of the Internet. Usually, it takes more time for me to get back to work than the amount of time that I had been distracted for. I might be searching for something specific related to University work, and 30 minutes later I have clicked through 20 different recommended links and completed a Buzzfeed quiz that stated that, out of all the vegetables, I am 'soo a broccoli'. As often as this happens, it could be called an addiction. Human beings naturally have a thirst for knowledge, and need to appease their curiosity. This is also cleverly used by advertisement and spam emails, with links like '21 things you need to know about tacos...': you probably don't need to know at all; in fact, it is probably quite a pointless article, but you just have to find out what it is about. This curiosity is also what usually makes people constantly check Facebook, Instagram or any other social media for updates, which can consequently create other mental health issues like anxiety. Another noticeable effect of this information overload can be found in the fast sharing of media: particularly false or altered news in tabloids, that could create controversies in social media platforms. In a day you could have read 6 different, altered versions of the same story. This usually creates a distorted view of reality, which can only lead to the more extreme effects of this overload of information: conspiracy theorists and people who suffer from extreme paranoia because of the amount of time spent researching online.

'Taking a break'
Nowadays, it is not uncommon to see someone going on an 'information diet', or a 'Facebook/internet break'. Often people feel the need to 'cleanse' their minds off the internet, and their addiction to it. While I do not make this official, I do find myself needing a break from being in front of a screen, and neglect my phone and laptop for a while, (to the point that I sometimes decide not to open/reply to a message just because I would have to use my phone). I wouldn't personally say that it is something I must force/restrict from doing, but rather decide I am 'done with it for a while' and leave my phone uncharged for days. This could be because the abundance of information can itself be so overwhelming that it sometimes can make me feel numb. Checking on social media and being part of the 'always-on' culture could be said to be because everybody hates missing out on things, however when I spend too much time obsessing over it, I feel like I have been wasting time, and missing out on life outside of social media.

.

--Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 03:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments
Hi, I really enjoyed reading your piece! It is really well structured and you show how much the information online affects you and young people especially. I find it really interesting when you mention the issue that the amount of time spent going through information is massive and all the clicks which take place every day. I had never thought of my own activity until you mentioned the amount of time we spend going through social media specifically and all the information at our reach through phones/tablets/computers etc. Your entry could be linked to Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism by Lanier who says that because newspapers are in decline, there is so much more emphasis and value on the internet and so our online use and consumption of information needs to be in our control. LucyClaire (discuss • contribs) 11:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I totally agree with the feeling of numbness that you described. Sometimes being confronted to too much information can make you feel almost indifferent. Also, when you spend too much time on the internet and responding friends you can feel so disconnected from where you are here and now, I feel. I often find myself, like you, not checking my Facebook for one week just to have some peace away from all the information about friend's lives. I think all this more or less useless information, also the advertisements you mentioned, just take up so much space in my brain, that I'd rather use in more meaningful ways, so I think it's important to manage the information I would like to receive, and I also try to avoid clicking on those annoying advertisements because more often than not the simply contain irrelevant if not inaccurate information. Rosane linde (discuss • contribs) 15:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, this was a really interesting piece and it is interesting to see the similarities in both of our opinions on this subject. In response to the comment you left on my discussion page, I think you're argument about social media being an addiction is an interesting one - I think with regards to that I have become addicted to it without even being fully aware. Since writing this week's assignment I have definitely begun to notice how often I just scroll through Twitter or Facebook if I'm bored or just trying to kill time, even if it's just the same stuff I'm seeing on them over and over again. I should probably try and follow your advice and go on a social media cleanse for a few days! Also I really liked how you linked your writing in with danah boyd's theory. Jdwharris (discuss • contribs) 00:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you really captured the futility of some Buzzfeed articles online, what are your thoughts on sites like these becoming more and more like ads? If I read an article on Buzzfeed, or even a news site like Russia Today or The Independent there are always links to ad pages that are presented almost exactly the same as other "real" articles? Do you think its unethical that this sort of practice monetises from people's addiction to pursuing knowledge? --Idkun (discuss • contribs) 16:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
The Wikimedia Foundation, and all of its wiki platforms, (like Wikibooks) share one essential main concept: it is a collaborative process realized online between multiple users. This idea simulates working together in a project as you would when you meet up with your teammates in 'real life', and takes it a step further by using the Internet, meaning it is far more accessible and essentially anyone with access to the Internet and the technology needed can contribute to a project. While at its core it seems like a very useful tool, one could argue that the fact that this is an online interaction can prove to be far more challenging than a face-to-face interaction.

Our Collaborative Experience
When having being separated into small groups of 4 or 5 people, the challenge seemed quite simple and easy to handle. However, we ended up working in a group of 28 people, which proved to be the most challenging aspect of this experience. While some group members could say that the project was off to a good start, I would have to disagree, because of the lack of members participating at the point when there were only a few entries written in the discussion page. It was not a terribly bad start, but since the vast majority of our group only joined in to the discussion about 2-3 weeks later, it is therefore quite difficult to call this a start, or to even define the starting point of this project.

This is where being in such a large group became such a challenge: you could only ever start a discussion with so many people (the ones who had been online). You could not reach to the remaining half of the group if they were not online, and as a result it was extremely challenging to divide the workload accordingly so that every member had something to do, and a way of participating in this collaborative project. While I do realise that in the professional world, working in large groups will be necessary in most cases, and while I personally have never had a problem working in a group, I had also never been a part of such a huge group before, and also felt quite limited by the fact it was an online process. Because of the size of our group and due to the fact that we were sharing one topic (and of course there are just so many things one can say about one single topic), it felt more like a 'evey man for themselves' situation and, because of this build up of a rather competitive pressure, in some cases it also felt like a 'first come first serve' situation, which absolutely obliterates the main concept and ideas of collaborating for a wiki platform.

Towards the end, the project resulted a bit chaotic, since most people who had not been participating before had now started joining the discussion and perhaps were feeling overwhelmed and left out. However, I would argue that this encouraged more people to wrack their brains to find more subtopics to add to our project, with resulted in (what I would say to be) a very thorough and researched, complete project. Albeit the process was very chaotic and unorganized, I would say that the end result was quite pleasing.

Personally, I expressed my concerns on the uneven distribution of workload suggesting to perhaps work in smaller groups and divide the topic in several sub-sections so that every smaller group would tackle each section. This way, no group member would feel left out and the workload would have been equally shared, and also it would have been easier to organise. However, this idea was not aproved by some group members, and I was suggested I came up with a section myself and share it with my original smaller group, (which I ended up doing). We worked in this smaller group, which ended up proving to be much easier. We met offline face-to-face several times and managed to add to each other's sections and review and collaborate to each of them. Meeting offline did prove to be easier, since there was no chance for miss-communication (as is common when online). However, we developed a small group discussion section in the discussion page online as well, where the discussion became very helpful as well, when asking for the group members to review the recently uploaded chapter and collaborate to it. As time passed, more members saw our sub-section and added to it, and so we happily worked together and collaborated in creating a larger, and therefore quite thorough subtopic, which I would say to be a very simple and satisfactory experience, where it worked out nicely in the end for us.

Critical Review
Overall, this task and experience relates nicely to the critical concept of Web 2.0, which Gauntlett describes as a process of "harnessing the collective abilities of the members of an online network, to make an especially powerful resource or service. [...] any collective activity which is enabled by people’s passions and becomes something greater than the sum of its parts." . The main concept of this theory relates to how our collective intelligence worked together in order to create a cohesive piece of writing, in which also our collective research and knowledge was enhanced by it being shared and discussed thoroughly in the discussion page, further enhancing our collaborative process and experience.

The concept of The Civic Web, fits nicely with this experience and links together the concepts of freedom of expression, cognitive surplus and collective intelligence. People generally enjoy forming part of a group that will make the world a better place, or, in our case, part of an academic experience that will help us develop and enhance our knowledge on what we have decided to study and work on for University and hopefully for the rest of our lives. The discussion page was also very useful and links nicely to the concept of freedom of expression and our role as civic activists, where we actively shared knowledge and our research and were able to freely express our opinions on the project and its process, in the hopes that the project itself would be enhanced and improved.

Overall, I would not say it was entirely a negative experience. It proved to be very challenging and difficult, but in the end I am quite proud of the work we have collectively produced and presented. I would definitely also say that because of how challenging it was to work in a group so large where the group's communication was crippled, (even though it was not pleasant at the beginning), I could now safely assume that I feel prepared for any other type of group work that could possibly prove to also be challenging.

(Forgot to sign this!) --Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 11:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #4
Please feel free to add your comments here!

Hello, I really enjoyed reading this, along with your comments on my entry! I totally agree with everything you say here, since we were working on the same Wikibook I feel we had a very similar experience, though this may have been the same across the board. The smaller groups did become virtually useless as we all worked as individuals in a much larger group, and I feel like if we had spread the workload differently from the start the way you describe, the whole process may have been a little easier and a lot fairer, though I am also pleased with the eventual efforts of our small group in reconnecting and working together- it may have worked out for the best and the end result is overall very thorough and well laid-out in my opinion. Your quote from Gauntlett does sum up a kind of idealised version of the Wikibooks contribution experience but, as we discussed on my talk page, didn't end up applying so well to our experience for various reasons. The pressures and constraints that came with the assessed nature of our contributions meant that they didn't really come from a place of cognitive surplus but from necessity, and overall doesn't reflect the natural progression of a Wiki page made by people who are purely interested in sharing and furthering knowledge. Though the task and process was educational I completely agree with your conclusions on the whole experience, and do feel much better equipped to deal with a similar type of collaborative process in the future. Lilygeorgia96 (discuss • contribs) 18:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, thank you very much for your comment! We discussed the links between this experience and information overload in your page, and I'm glad that you agree and that you think it links up nicely, too. I also think and agree with you that because of this stress and pressure, the nature of our contributions came more from necessity rather than cognitive surplus because of the assessed nature of this project, but, at the same time, I think we really did intend to create a informative, cohesive and complete piece of writing in the end, not only for the grade, but also (at least in my case!) for personal satisfaction! Even if the process was tough, I always feel much better at the end if I am actually proud of what I have written, which was what happened in this case, and I think it does describe some of the ideas of cognitive surplus. Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 02:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I also agree with everything you have said in this post. I completely understand the issues with distributing the workload and also trying to communicate with people who were not logged on. This could be seen as reflecting the "always on" culture because some members I think just expected everyone to be logged on all the time as expected an immediate response. Obviously, this was not the case and some members did not log on till a week before the deadline, meaning they were left with smaller, maybe less important topics which resulted in them feeling left out and angry. I think you can learn so much from this project as I know it has taught me valuable lessons about working in such large groups with people you do not know. I agree with both yourself and Lily when you say the whole experience will help you if you ever have to deal with a similar situation in the future so therefore, the project was positive. --Amy Wardle (discuss • contribs) 20:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your feedback! I also agree with your views (more so since we were in the same larger group), and I quite like how you have linked this to the 'always-on' culture, something I did describe on my post but did not actually openly mention. One of the largest problems there were with this project was online miscommunication, and the fact that not everybody could be reached. However I think it is quite interesting to compare this to how we are in the 'always-on' culture with social media, but not all members were 'always-on' in this project. Of course, this project being entirely academic and not purely entertainment like social media is, there are obvious aspects to why not every user was 'always on', but I recognise that at some point towards the last 2 weeks of the project- I was mildly obsessed with this project! I was incredibly stressed out with it, which ironically made me refresh the page more often, keep checking for notifications, and be 'always on'. It was all that I could think about for the longest time. I realize this is definitely not the healthiest approach, but I was so anxious and stressed that I could not help myself, which is a very odd and interesting way to become part of the 'always on' culture, in my own personal experience! Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 02:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with you that trying to manage and interact with the larger group became very confusing and hard to keep up as everyones different comments and opinions. I also found that it was frustrating at the beginning when not everyone had began to start working on the task. I do not know if you found this but for my group it was annoying as several people who hadn't participated at all in the initial discussions later had very strong opinions on ways that we could change what we had already planned. Just like your group, mine also had several members who tried to take control of everything and take more than their share of the workload. I understand that there are going to be leaders in every group but I agree that by not communicating clearly with the group these individuals did seem to miss the point of the online community that is created on any Wikipedia/Wikiboks page. I think your inclusion of Freedom of Expression in your critical review was very interesting and something that I had not considered but completely agree with your statement on it. Clarenotdanni (discuss • contribs) 22:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello! Thanks a lot for your comment. I can definitely relate quite strongly to your experience. I guess it seems to be one of the limitations of working in a larger group where you could not communicate with everybody at the same time. Naturally, in group projects, opinions will always clash and not everybody will be happy, but I think this particular project put everybody in a situation of stress that was also crippled by the fact that everybody needed to be online very often, but also under a deadline and the pressure of it being an individually assessed project, which kind of killed the group spirit, since everybody really tried to do the best for themselves, rather than for the sake of the group or rather for the sake of the wiki community. Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 02:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
You made a number of significant contributions to chapter content (particularly in relation to sections on Instagram, narratives of self and self-empowerment, Anonymous). These edits were substantial, and were well written and researched, drawing from arrange of relevant sources. This included interwiki and external links to enrich the content, some general formatting which helped to tidy up the page, and important contribs involving the addition of citation and discussion of secondary research to existing topics where you identified gaps. Excellent use of case studies as examples too (e.g. Ulman, and Anonymous), as well as application of relevant theory and scholarship. Extensive, consistent engagement and collaboration throughout the project period.

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, featuring discriminating command of a comprehensive  range of relevant materials and analyses
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material to an exemplary level
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument through considered judgement relating to key issues, concepts or procedures
 * exemplary evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position);
 * comprehensive evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections);
 * considerable evidence of independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content of an exemplary quality (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Excellent levels of engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of discussion pages using deployment of considered  judgement relating to key issues, concepts and procedures

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 15:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)