User talk:Reuben1508

Hello, I'm Reuben1508. I'm currently studying at the University of Stirling and am part of a class project. I am looking forward to learning about how to use Wikibooks and editing articles. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 18:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: What Makes a Good Wiki?
Online collaboration has played a huge part in my overall internet experience, and my involvement in multiple social media sites and information websites has led me to the conclusion that they are extremely valuable. These sites can vary drastically, with some focusing more on smaller, text or image based posts (such as Facebook), and others on larger text based posts (such as Reddit). Other sites include Blogger, Wikipedia and Twitter. Each of these sites have sub-sections, which help separate information into easy to digest, organised blocks. For example, Reddit revolves around huge numbers of "Sub-Reddits". These Subreddits span almost every topic imaginable, ranging from technology, to art, to fashion, to music. Each of these subreddits are filled with knowledgeable experts, but also those who are less familiar with the topic. This collaboration between those who are knowledgeable on subjects, and those who are not can be found within most other social media sites, however they present their information and findings in different manners. For example, Twitter acts as a quick way to convey your feelings or information that interests you, which can be useful for those around you to learn, but is by no means a viable platform for sharing large amounts of information (despite what Donald Trump may think). Tumblr is also similar to this, however it does not have a post size limit and therefore can be used as a platform to collect knowledge on a larger scale. Another platform is Facebook, which has recently come under fire for the sharing of fake news and the spreading of mass information between millions of users. Each of these social media platforms are home to millions of users, meaning that they are capable of large scale collaborations. One example of this is the Facebook movement showing support to refugees, with many people able to give their own personal experiences in order to further our understanding of the situation. This mass collection of global opinions leads to both heated arguments and meaningful discussions, something which can be found across every social media platform.

The differences between social media engagement and Wiki engagement are clear to see. Firstly, social media is often the subject of people projecting their own personal opinions onto news stories and informative articles. This is most prominently seen on Facebook, with a large proportion of users who share news and information also commenting on it themselves. Although this is not a bad thing in itself, it cannot be trusted as a reliable source of information as the posters are usually not qualified to speak on the subject and instead end up pushing their own ideals upon those who see the post. This is also common on Tumblr, which I personally stopped using due to the extreme levels of toxicity with regards to virtually any topic mentioned. The lack of clarity was evident, with multiple conflicting sources being cited, and a complete unwillingness from most users to have meaningful discussions in order to settle arguments. However, on Wiki sites the information is fact-checked, and those contributing need to be at least somewhat knowledgeable on the topic in order to successfully post or update an article. This creates a very different attitude towards information and the sharing of ideas. Instead of a large demographic who are able to comment and contribute towards anything they see online (through social media sites), there is a small expert demographic who create and edit the article. Although this limits the overall range of opinions and potential collection of knowledge on the subject, it ensures that there is not misinformation (the likes of which found on social media sites), and that the collaboration is organised. Despite this emphasis on expertise, everybody is able to edit Wiki articles, provided that the edit is approved by others who contributed to the article. In order for an edit to be accepted you must cite references, something which is unheard of on social media sites. This moderation allows the protection of the original collaboration, whilst still giving others the opportunity to add to it. In comparison Facebook has very little moderation due to its massive scale, and this lack of moderation leads to it being an unreliable source of news (unless you follow trusted news outlets). However, the lack of moderation is not always a bad thing, and the freedom of speech which social media offers is crucial to the core expression that social media enables.

In conclusion there are many different platforms that are used to collaborate, ranging from social media sites such as Facebook, to Wiki sites. All of these platforms have their own positives and negatives, but they all have a purpose. Social media is a useful tool for gaining mass opinions on subjects, and Wiki sites are invaluable archives of expertise and knowledge.Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 00:38, 8 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.


 * 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.


 * This post is at the lower end of this grade band, so there’s 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. Less instrumentally, and more in relation to this particular post, it is clear that you can write well, and have thought about the task to hand. You might want to think about presentation though - this kind of post although informative, is quite text-heavy and could do with a little creative formatting to, help engage the reader. 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 fairly good, if 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. You are beginning to discuss in an open and critical way that is to say, you've responded to what other people are saying and are contributing meaningfully to discussion - arguably the civic element of wiki that you ought to be thinking about, which you clearly are. For example, in one of your posts, you feedback that Overall this is a good summary, which makes clear points in a well laid out manner. However there are a few spelling mistakes that need to be corrected - ok, well then correct them! And ensure that you record these as minor corrections in the tick box/edit summary field below the text editor.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 10:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Ex#1
Good choice to pull from your own personal experience of social media. It is interesting how you use contemporary examples for each social media platform. It may be good to include the negative sides of reddit and facebook groups in order to see both sides of the argument and how some communities on both are quite toxic/ offended to users that join these communities to learn more on a certain subject.

Hello Reuben1508, I found your post to be a highly interesting read about social media and wiki use which fell in line with my experience of the platforms mentioned. Despite never having used Tumblr myself, i am familiar with the way in which other online users tend to perceive the platform which seems to stem from and may add to the toxic attitudes you mentioned. Your post also features great detail on each of the points made such as your explanation of the pros and cons of online moderation with mentions of information limitation and free speech. Whilst the post generally flows well from one point to another, perhaps using features of the editing markup language may help increase the readability of future posts as large paragraphs can be intimidating to the general reader. MurrayHighFive (discuss • contribs) 20:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

REPLY to MurraryHighFive: Thanks very much for the feedback. I agree that the post needed a formatting improvement and have now adjusted the paragraphs to make them easier to read. I'm glad that my article captured your views as well as mine. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 18:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Reuben1508, your thoughts on social media and wiki engagement insightful and relatable. Your identifying the main way in which popular social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook breaks down the way in which I as well as almost everyone else collobarotes with one another on these sites. I think the most interesting thing you say is how social media is a platform from which our own opinions can be projected and how this is foten attached to a news story or article. I found this very astute because I myself have seen the blurring of fact and opinion through social media. You say that what Wikipedia lacks in engagement it makes up for in its far more reliable information; I was wondering if you thought that a more user friendly interface to encourage faster, more reactive thoughts on a site such as Wikipedia would be a benefit for expression or whether it would hinder the core values?ChrisintheHat (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

REPLY to ChrisintheHat: Thanks for the feedback CitH. I do think that a better Wikipedia interface would improve the number of people able to add to Wikipedia articles, however I feel that this would be damaging to the reliability of Wikipedia as a low-level source of information. The strict moderation on the Wiki sites allows for only true information to be included, and makiing it easy for anybody to contribute could create a moderation nightmare. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 18:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2 : Visibility and Data Trails
I’d like to think that I’m pretty careful with how I build the online profiles I have. I have a large number of them, with Facebook, Reddit,  Steam and Soundcloud being main ones. In each of these profiles I share differing information depending on the subjects I’m addressing in the profile. For example, I will happily share my full name on Facebook as it makes it easy for others to find me. However, I won’t share my full name through Steam as anybody can use that information to find me on other social media sites, and this is far more risky than putting my name on Facebook, as you come across many types of people when gaming and browsing Steam. Aside from Facebook, I share very little personal information on social media sites. My Soundcloud has nothing with regards to personal information, just  my account name and a small description.

On Reddit I use two accounts, one is my main which I use for posts I am happy enough for people around me to find (such as music posts). The other is a “throwaway”, and I use that one for posts with personal issues and information about me that I’d rather people around me didn’t know. This to my knowledge is quite common on Reddit, as a large proportion of people wouldn’t want their friends knowing about everything they post on the internet. The same goes for sites such as Tumblr, with many users (including myself at the time), choosing a screenname that did not relate to myself in any way.

On Facebook I also share very little, I mostly use it as a free messaging service. I do sometimes post links to music and YouTube videos that I think others might enjoy, but aside from that I’m fairly stagnant. My likes and follows of users reflect my personality and tastes, and although this does contribute towards the nature of the adverts I receive, I don’t feel as though this is an invasion of privacy. I’d rather have targeted adverts than completely random ones. One aspect of my Facebook experience is the immediate nature of it. If I refresh my feed every few minutes I’ll be greeted with at least twenty new posts, most of which aren’t interesting to me, but they’re there nonetheless. This constant flow of information and the immediate nature of messaging leaves me anxious when I’m not near my phone or PC. I personally find that instant data and messaging is both a blessing and a curse, as I am very grateful to be able to call somebody or text them immediately, but I also now cannot go for an extended period of time without checking my phone.

I also occasionally use a VPN (Virtual Private Network) to hide my internet activity. This comes in handy when browsing sites that are known to harvest your online activity and sell it to third parties, and also when booking tickets online. I do believe that there is a divide between my online life and my real life. I am generally more confident in online interactions than in real world ones, meaning that I often come across as more outgoing than I actually am. I have made a large number of friends online through videogames, who I haven’t met in real life, but I would still consider myself close to. My experience of online friends showed me how technology allows me to grow, giving me a platform to develop my social skills. The issue of privacy is a pressing one, with the UK Government trying its damndest to pass the “snoopers charter”, a law that would allow total online surveillance of the UK population. This is part of my reason for choosing not to post many personal details online, and also why I sometimes use a VPN when browsing.

In conclusion I’d like to think I’m careful with how visible I am online, and that I have taken the appropriate steps to ensure my privacy. However, I know that while I am more careful than a large number of people, I’m still subject to data mining and 3rd party data collection. My use of a Reddit throwaway account helps as I am not in danger of those around me finding it, however Facebook still provides people with a decent amount of information about me, such as my age, University and personal tastes. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 22:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Reuben1508, i'm Bricedoesn'tlikehighfives. I read your post and found your personal recounting, as well as much of your knowledge on UK privacy rights and VPNs engaging and informative. Though multiple forms of visibility exist in the online world today, you seem confident and assured in the representation of yourself. Your honesty, about your personal use of each of these platforms - ranging from your physical portrayal (on Facebook) to more of an online mask (reddit etc). That being said, i'm wondering whether you have any opinion on the use of avatars to represent one's online identity. As a fellow 'gamer' i don't put much time or effort into the choosing of my avatar, and use this personalisation tool as more of a comedic outlet. Do you think that there is almost a necessity these days for online personas (across multiple platforms) to be labeled and represented with an image? (however truthful that image may be) You have a broad knowledge of 3rd party data collection and are in tune with the facts that certain websites may use your personal information for not only their own benefit but for the benefit of others also, as the information is shared, and often sold. Your discussion of your personal use of VPNs fascinated me, as i was previously unaware of their existence. By mentioning your personal social interactions and how they differ (perhaps) from your online interactions - and how this presents yourself online - you have raised an interesting point. As both a blessing and a burden, the opportunity for us to present ourselves online has an impact not only on ourselves (and our self-confidence) but on others also; those who speak to us and who we interact with, those who we may potentially never meet face to face - a common trend in gaming circles. Overall, your very personal piece was written with style and a succinct knowledge of your social surroundings - a pleasure to read. Bricedoesn&#39;tlikehighfives (discuss • contribs) 18:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Reuben, your insight into online visibilty and data trails is very interesting as you draw upon your own experiences upon several different platforms and extensively elaborate upon these to create an in-depth and knowledgeable portrayal of the subject matter. As someone that has clearly carefully considered these topics before, your first hand experience of the way in which sites collect and use your information provides an interesting example of what the consequences of these issues are. I found it particularly intriguing how careful you are on such popular sites such as reddit, as I personally have never considered the possible repercussions of containing everything in one account. Futhermore your changing of your VPN to avoid the data mining websites you are aware of shows a high level of consciousness that has made me question my own willingness to allow websites access to my personal details without any consideration for what this might lead to. I'd be very interested to hear where you personally would draw the line betweeen healthy awareness and an unhealthy fear of such data trails, and perhaps even advice you'd have for those who would consider themselves a novice to the internet. ChrisintheHat (discuss • contribs) 22:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3 : Information Overload
In this day and age, we are constantly bombarded with information. Whether it be through phone apps such as BBC News, physical newspapers or even just from discussions we have with our friends and peers. In all three of these examples, the information is varied, ranging from celebrity gossip, to scientific discoveries, to a myriad of other topics we frequently encounter. Due to the large amount of platforms that deliver information, it is very easy to become distracted, and I personally struggle to complete tasks that require my undivided attention due to this. For example, I’ve just been distracted by a Met Office weather warning on my phone. In order to combat this I usually put my phone to silent when I need to concentrate. Other methods I use include purposefully limiting what type of information I come into contact with, to the best of my ability. I do this by blocking certain Facebook pages, installing Kardashian blockers (which removes every trace of the Kardashian family from my internet browser), and also by unfollowing friends on social media if they post things that I find to be arbitrary or of no use to me. Although this may seem like a harsh reaction, it’s the only way that I have found to ensure that I only come into information I find useful or interesting.

However, this is not usually enough, and I frequently fall for clickbait articles on Facebook pages such as the LadBible. It’s impossible to completely avoid being distracted, all one can hope for is that the majority of information they come into contact with is useful or entertaining. When I deal with the abundance of information I split “information” into two sections. The first is the intellectual information, such as weather reports, news articles and academic papers. I generally don’t avoid this information, as it serves the purpose of increasing my knowledge of whatever topic it covers. However, in some instances such as reading lots of academic papers in succession, it can become wearing. The second section is the entertainment information, such as YouTube videos, and other casual information I view when relaxing or killing time. I don’t often actively seek out this information, and instead use them instead as a means of unwinding. However my exposure to this entertainment information varies wildly between platforms. For example, on Facebook, a large portion of what I see does not interest me in the slightest, but due to the number of friends I have, it becomes very difficult to avoid it. I don’t often click on the links, but I am still exposed to that type of casual information. In comparison, Youtube is a far more personal experience, as I need to either search for videos, or look at the channels I have purposefully subscribed to to find videos. This allows me to tailor the experience to my liking, reducing the amount of unnecessary information I come into contact with.

The WikiBook project presents multiple challenges. One of these is ensuring that the project is coherent and written in consistent style in order to create a comprehensive final article. Due to ten people working on the project at the same time, there’s bound to be clashes and repetition of information and references. The use of Facebook chats and the discussions page on WikiBooks allows for consistent communication however due to the scale of the project, smaller communication channels between 2-3 people are proving invaluable as they allow for targeted, specific information and ideas to be shared. In order to improve our workflow, my colleagues and I have met up in classes (and plan to do so externally too) to discuss a plan for steps we each need to take. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 20:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Reuben1508. I found this piece incredibly refreshing to read. Your opening paragraph points were a welcome introduction into the life of someone who not only has parallels with what they do and do not "have time for", but to someone who has actually taken action and made a sort of stand against consuming any and all information that online companies would like us to consume. Your comments on your own personal experience when it comes to viewing videos also ring true. Finally, your discussion of how information overload has affected wikibooks (and to an extent your judgement of how wikibooks somewhat fails as a communicative tool) also provided me with valuable information when coming to my own article writing. I agree with your statements on the "repetition of information and references" and overall find many interesting personal comparisons (mostly similarities) with your piece and my personal opinion. The piece was clearly written with style and substance, using both global and personal examples. Bricedoesn&#39;tlikehighfives (discuss • contribs) 11:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Reuben1508, I found what you wrote very relatable and found myself agreeing largely with what you said. The way that you divided and atriculated seperate parts of social media and click bait articles made it very clear to break down and identify the different ways in which different sites and companies are fighting for our attention online. Your tactics to avoid distraction are very focussed and driven and highlight the way in which it is possible to block out a large majority of information that you find distracting online. Concerning the Wikibook project, I found that what you said mirrored my own experience, and was able to outline a way in which we as a group our working towards a goal. ChrisintheHat (discuss • contribs) 12:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
From my personal experience of the Wiki platform, I don’t believe that it was designed with mass communication in mind, rather for a few experts on a particular subject to collaborate and create a detailed, reliable online dictionary. The task of communicating with ten (and often more) people through Wikibooks made constant connectivity a must, not only in the regard of being connected to the internet, but also to the Wikibook website itself. This is because Wikibooks does not offer any external notifications, and relies on the consistently refreshing the page in order to communicate with others. It could be argued that Wikipedia has become "locked-in", with the foundations of the site being built on a clunky form of communication which now cannot be changed as it would inconvenience those who have been using the site for a long time, and may also affect the way user pages function. However, Wikibooks is able notify specific users when they have been mentioned, making it much easier to others to see replies and information relevant to them. This saved the Wikibooks platform from being almost impossible to communicate effectively through. Although group, or even one on one discussion via Wiki was very time consuming, the Wiki talk pages did provide a useful feed for the posting of work-in-progress, academic articles and other sites such as commons search engines. Through the talk pages, users created headings for topics, and this kept the discussion focused and allowed the members of the group to add information in an organised manner. When communicating with my fellow Wikipedians, I often found myself typing in a very formal sense, something I very rarely do on other online platforms. I believe this is important for two reasons, the first being that its easier to understand arguments and points if they’re clearly written, and the second that an informal style of communication could be perceived as disrespectful.

Both the online interaction and offline meetings were essential to collaboration within the project. In both of these interactions, the members of the group were connected to the Wikibooks and many other websites. The collaboration in the meetings resulted in further posts on the Wikipedia page, and the editing of styles and punctuation was at the forefront of this. The content was also discussed, and I had a large hand in ensuring that each section of the Wiki was accurate and made sense within the wider context of the project. Although these meetings could have been conducted over the talk page, the ability to instantly reply to ideas and viewpoints allowed for more efficient interactions. Although this was not online connectivity, the ability to stay permanently connected to the group in person made for significantly clearer and more productive cooperation.

The research environment in which I was writing in undoubtedly influenced how I tackled the Wikibook. Group work was essential to the success of the project, and the ability to ask others for help proved to be very useful. Article links, advice and opinions were shared through the talk page, giving each individual student a wider scope of opinions and knowledge to base their sub-section on. This synergy between the group made for a more complete finished article, rather than individual sections of knowledge thrown together without a consistent style. The larger group that I was part of made it easy to find somebody who had similar interests to me, and in most of these cases we were able to help each other find relevant academic articles and websites to help further our research and understanding of the topics. Although the ability to communicate through Wikipedia was essential to the project, I strongly feel that the various group meetings were what allowed us to open up fully with our ideas and thoughts. The face-to-face, in person experience of talking to either an individual, or group made it much easier to make progress, as discussion flows much quicker and more fluidly when immediate responses are given.

To conclude, I found the Wikibook project to be both an interesting, but frustrating experience. The ability to collaborate with multiple other students was essential to the project’s success, however the overall communication experience was hampered by a lack of instant notifications. The most progress was made when meetings were held in person. However the ability to share information between everybody through the talk page, allowed for a large collection of links, articles and other useful information to be compiled. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 11:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Reuben, I found your reflective piece here on the Wikibook project to be very interesting, as it provided a different perspective from which to view my similar experiences. I thought what you had to say about the collaborative nature of the site to be true, and I myself would agree with a large majority of what you had to say concerning that matter, and how you went about navigating the issue during the time of the project. Furthermore, what you had to say on the group work aspect of working on Wikibooks and how that shaped the way in which you used the site was also very similar fo rme, and i thought the way you summed up how our groups use of the site shaped the final outcome to be an accurate summing up of what i too felt. ChrisintheHat (discuss • contribs) 17:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Good. Your contribution to the book page gives a good brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a good 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 a good 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


 * Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory entries may try to relate an idea from the module to an original example, but might not be very convincing. They may waste space on synopsis or description, rather than making a point. They may have spelling or grammatical errors and typos. They might not demonstrate more than a single quick pass at the assignment, informed only by lecture and/or cursory reading. They may suggest reading but not thinking (or indeed the reverse). The wiki markup formatting will need some work.


 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, featuring command of a fair range of relevant materials and analyses
 * some evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * articulated and supported argument through judgement relating to key issues, concepts or procedures
 * some evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position);
 * some evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections);
 * some evidence of independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content to an appreciable standard (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 judgement relating to key issues, concepts and procedures