User talk:Sam ediko

This is sam_ediko preparing for our wikibook project.Sam ediko (discuss • contribs) 14:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: What Makes a Good Wiki?
For me, one of the easiest ways to collaborate with others and share ideas is through Facebook. Whether it is school work or working for various companies, I have found that the majority of people are actively using Facebook as a means of collaboration. Because Facebook is considered one of the main social media platforms, it is a much faster way for people to get in contact with each other. I have used Facebook many times to contact individuals for group projects, share important articles, and as a way to connect with customers when working for several different customer services industries. Not only that, but one of Facebook's main purposes is for users to share their ideas. In the status update box, it says, "What's on your mind?" which creates the idea that users should be sharing anything and everything that they feel necessary. Similar to Facebook, I have often used Google as a way to share ideas with others. Google is another platform that most people use regularly and have an account of some sort. Google is a great place to share and create documents, powerpoints, and excel sheets. I have used this many times for school projects and work projects.

As this is the first time that I have used Wikibooks or even edited on Wikipedia, I have already noticed that it is completely different from any platform I have ever used. As it is most similar to a blog, I think that it is a bit more difficult to share your ideas. Once this is posted, it is shared to the world and anyone can view it. However, I think that it will be much harder to find unless one is actively looking for my exact post. If this were Facebook or Twitter of even a blog, much more people would be able to read this post as it would be easier for them to access it.Sam ediko (discuss • contribs) 17:53, 7 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.


 * 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.


 * This post is at the upper end of this grade band, so a little improvement will go a long way to attaining a higher mark. 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, you need to now be thinking a little more critically and in depth about the concepts involved. For example, you state that: In the status update box, it says, "What's on your mind?" which creates the idea that users should be sharing anything and everything that they feel necessary. Yes, indeed. Social media connectivity does precisely this, for specific economic reasons - its business models and forms of connectivity require as much interaction from its users as possible. So, the task is for us to this about a) the nature or quality of that connectivity, and b) to think about some of the underlying issues and challenges presented by such connectivity.


 * 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.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

While Facebook is a prime source for connecting with others around the globe, I do think that other social media platforms have come to light. Like Twitter which you mentioned or Instagram, Linkedin, etc. Social media is definitely taking a turn to help people connect in ways that weren't even imaginable 100 years ago so the fact that we are able to communication by simply tweeting or adding someone as a friend is a concept that is weird to think about. I feel like one of the downsides to being able to connect, though, is that you may have people on your profiles who you don't know or who you don't want viewing them. While there are privacy settings put in place so that it prevents some from seeing your profiles you cant help but ask the question -- how private are my accounts actually? Americankatie (discuss • contribs) 11:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Data Trails
In terms of visibility, I believe that anyone who uses the internet allows it to receive and save information about you. Regardless of if you put any personal information online or not, the internet will track which websites you visit, the amount of time that you spend on certain websites, and what content you look at on these websites. It will then use this to create ads or "suggestions" for you based on the data already collected from your previous use of the internet.

When thinking about these questions, I find myself realizing how visible I must be online. I use Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Google, Twitter, etc., and all of these platforms collect different information about me. None of these accounts are "public" so most information is private and only shared with friends or followers. However, that does not mean that the information is not visible or collected once it is put online. Based on ads and notifications that I have received while using these social media platforms, I am sure that my birthday, location, place of work, where I attend school, and other information that is thought to be private are in fact very public. When I think of why I chose to share that particular information about myself on my profile, I think that most of it has to do with others finding me, which obviously contradicts the idea of privacy. I put my university and high school on my profile so that people who also went or go to school with me can easily access me and become my friend. This in itself makes me much more visible online and my location more visible. Although we have privacy settings on our accounts, the information is still collected by Facebook, Instagram or whatever site in order to create personal ads and things for us. These ads are created based on the products that we buy online, the content that we look at, and the various links that we click on while surfing the internet. For example, I can "like" a page like the Kardashians on my Facebook profile, and soon my newsfeed is filled with not only content from that page but other stories and videos of the Kardashians simply because I "liked" one page. Along with that, those privacy settings can be hacked or even changed or taken down by the site without us knowing based on whatever the site wants to do. It's interesting how often one must check their privacy settings simply because Facebook or Instagram decides to update and your private information could become public without your knowledge.

In terms of the project, our group is thinking of doing "Persistent Connectivity and The Fear of Missing Out," and it can relate to visibility and data trails in different ways. This idea of constant connection with each other online can also create a loss of privacy. The comments, messages, pictures, snapchats, and things that we send to each other are not necessarily private. For one, we may think that our direct messages are kept between two people, but they are in fact kept in a database and the information is taken and recorded. Along with that, this idea of missing out on things put us at a risk of checking online more, which of course means that more data is being collected. This could include the profiles that we follow and check or the posts we like and comments that we post. Sam ediko (discuss • contribs) 11:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The "cookies" seemed to be increasing to almost every website. I feel that everything we do online is tracked and calculated in order to get use to buy material items. Also due to the increasing amount of time we all spend using some form of social media FOMO is obviously increasing as well. Therefore, with constant connectivity we are straying away from actual people then the use of cookies draws us in more because for example we see a dress or pair of shoes on the side of a Facebook post and then spend hours looking at a clothing website. Madisonhen (discuss • contribs) 13:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment on Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Data Trails
Hello Sam ediko,

Have you ever tried to see how visible your information is online i.e. googling your name? The results can be pretty interesting, because the internet does not only seem to keep your data (which it does of course but actually deleted social media profiles even remain accessible to the public). [| Melissa0908] experienced it and tells about it in her Wikibooks. I do not want to imagine the amounts of data piling up somewhere online, which can be referred to us.

I also think that the idea of constant connection via social media simultaneously goes with a loss of privacy and strongly contributes to the fear of missing something out, because you see what everyone is doing and you do not. But that is also the point, where I question myself, if it is worse that online algorithms monitor us or that we use social media to monitor other people’s narrative, which reinforces our feeling of missing out and can have even worse effects on our actual real self (in matter of online surveillance). What is your opinion on that?

--DesireeSophie (discuss • contribs) 20:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@DesireeSophie,

I too have googled my name before and have been very surprised (and a little embarrassed) with the results. I don't think that we realize how much of an online trail we really leave behind. Those accounts that we "delete" are never truly deleted and old pictures or comments I think can usually be found somewhere on the internet. With that being said, I like your question about which is worse: the online monitor or our monitoring of other people. For me personally, I think that my use of monitoring other people's accounts has been more harmful than good. Like I said, I don't always consider how much data is collected and kept about me, therefore it is not a direct threat or even a constant thought when I am posting and looking things up online. However, I have been a victim of FOMO many times and have found myself overly "internet stalking" friends and followers which then leads to a loss of personal "real self" time. I really do spend much more time than I should looking through other people's accounts than I should which I think is more dangerous than the information I have online. I do think that online data collection is a scary thought, but my use of monitoring other online accounts is personally more harmful. Sam ediko (discuss • contribs) 20:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)



I liked reading your answer. I guess the internet follows the same principle as Wiki*edia regarding data storage. Just like you mentioned, it stores everything you upload or post, even if it is deleted at some point or changed, it saves every small change you do, just like here in Wikibooks. The users from different social media platforms can only see the end result and have no access to your ‘contributions’ and the list of your traceable data trails like you do here of Wikibooks. So, for me I would guess, Wiki*edia is in a way even more personal and authentic than any social media platform where you can ‘control’ the visibility of your profile yourself, because this way you do not have pictures or private information of a person but their unvarnished communication, which tells much more about their real identity than any other virtual practice alone could do.

Your experience with FOMO I very interesting. Thanks for sharing. SNS make us sort of vulnerable. Thinking that our online identity is only an extension of ourselves we expose ourselves to a new and wider audience. I think, FOMO is an underestimated phenomenon. People suffering FOMO end up in a cycle which leads to an increased online vulnerability and decreases self-esteem.

“A possible reason for this is that the use of SNS promotes social surveillance.”

A survey by Sarah L. Buglass et al. in the article “Motivators of online vulnerability: The impact of social network site use and FOMO” confirms our thoughts on this topic. The seriousness of FOMO depends on person’s mental stability, but I am sure that it can be a good thing, when it manifests in a healthy way. Then it is rather a curiosity and desire to discover new tings than the urge to monitor your friends.

--DesireeSophie (discuss • contribs) 10:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I think your answer is something people don't think about often. People say they have a lot of their information on Facebook, but it's okay because they have privacy settings. They don't think about cookies or the internet getting ahold of their information. I too have googled myself and found pictures of me when I was 12 years old. It is a very surprising what they can get ahold of when you have all your information out there. (Mpurcell22 (discuss • contribs) 11:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC))

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload
I find it hard to deal with the abundance of information on the internet and I often find myself distracted by the various forms of information. Whether I am researching for school, or just casually surfing the web on my free time, I often find myself going on multiple websites within minutes. I also often get so lost in all of the information and sites that I forget what I was originally searching for. I think that it is so easy to click on something while searching for something else because of ads and various stories. For example, if I am reading a particular story on say Buzzfeed, it is easy for me to read five more because there are often things like "if you liked this story, then you should read this" kind of suggestions on each page. The same kind of thing could apply when looking up sources for classes based on similar keywords and concepts.

However, in terms of school work, I try to keep a tunnel vision when searching for information. As there is an abundance of information as well as several different forms of information and credibility of sources, I always try to clarify what exactly I am searching for before I begin searching for it. I learned fairly quickly that I must stay focused on what I am trying to answer or talk about in an assignment because I know how easy it is to get distracted online. The first thing that I look for when searching for information online is credibility. Because there is so much information online, it is easy to find sources that are not credible or sources that provide false information. Besides searching for credible sources, I look to see if the information is actually relevant to the topic that I am researching. A lot of times when I search for something I will click on it based on the brief description provided only to find that the source actually has nothing to do with my topic. In terms of this project, I am trying to set aside as much time as I can each day to research my part of the project and begin to collect sources for it. Our group has decided to divide most of the project based on various topics. Sam ediko (discuss • contribs) 17:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's good that you try to keep a tunnel vision while working, but sometimes it's good to branch out. With so much information online, while it can be overwhelming a certain link could help you that you didn't think about before. It could also lead you to other stories or other websites that could help (especially with this project coming up). One thing I always like to do is check Wikipedia before working on a project and then checking the sources at the bottom because those tend to be more credible than just checking google, in my opinion. It's always pretty easy to end up in a Buzzfeed hole, as you mentioned, but I feel like sometimes that isn't always a bad thing because you can end up learning about things you didn't know before. Americankatie (discuss • contribs) 13:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Distractions on the internet are everywhere including cookies that will show adds about the clothes you were just looking at to suck you back in and make you forget what you were even doing. When it comes to sourcing I agree credibility is the top priority, its hard to even find that out sometimes because most cites take the extra step to seem credible. Just like with wikipedia you can not always be sure even though the info has a reference. Madisonhen (discuss • contribs) 13:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

You make some very interesting points in this post in which I can agree with. I also can get very easily distracted when it comes to the internet, and try very hard to keep a tunnel vision whilst doing school work. However most of the time I find it hard to depict between credible sources as there are a vast amount of sources out there that share a similar topic, do you also have this problem? Sammyforbes (discuss • contribs) 17:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sammy, I find it hard to decpict between credible sources because there are so many. Like I said in my response, not only is hard to find credible sources with so many out there, but it is harder for me to find credible sources that have the information that I need.

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
Before I started this project, I had never used Wikipedia for anything other than information. Over the past month, I have had to learn how to use and create things with Wikibooks. As strange to me as this assignment was, I feel like it helped me to learn the course content in a deeper way while also teaching me a new skill. As much as I learned through this assignment, I still feel like it was a little difficult to complete and use in groups.

I first thought that the idea of using and learning how to use a Wikibook would be helpful especially considering the content that we are learning about throughout this course. However, I quickly learned that Wikibook is something that is too complicated to work with while in a group. Individually, I feel like a Wikibook is good to use because you are able to create your own content. In doing the Wikibooks, I felt as though the project would not be that difficult. It was easy for me to type brief posts and comment on other users posts. It was not too hard to navigate in finding users and other content within Wikibooks. This also allowed me to start sharing ideas and comments with my classmates. These exercises let us get to know each other and our writing styles a little bit better. It also allowed us to start thinking about and discussing and debating topics that later showed up in our main Wikibook project.

However, I feel like it gets more complicated when trying to coordinate and delegate work amongst people. I first realised that I would have a difficult time with this assignment when we had to communicate on the discussion board instead of Facebook. This was something that I think no one in our group realised that we had to do. Facebook is a lot easier to use when trying to have a conversation with other people as Wikibooks creates more complications. When adding things to the discussion page on Wikibooks, you have to know certain 'formulas' in order to correctly reply to or tag other users. It took us a lot longer to figure these little things out instead of just using Facebook to collaborate. Once we realised that we should not be using Facebook, our group used the discussion board as much as possible. There were a few group members that we never really got in contact with which was also challenging when working on the Wikibook. Overall, I learned a new tool and completed the project with my group but I am not convinced that Wikibooks is a beneficial way to do group work online. Sam ediko (discuss • contribs) 03:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #4
HI, I agree with all of your points above. I think everyone feels that wiki is a great tool for a personal project, but when it came to the group projects it was too hard to navigate and communicate. Our group struggled at the start, and had to teach each other on Facebook what tools to use to communicate and then transfer this over to the wiki discussion page. I felt like we spent more time talking on two forms of social media than actually completing the project. How many people did you have in your group? We had a small number of 8 so it was relatively easy to coordinate our ideas and discussions. Susannamhawes (discuss • contribs) 11:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I agree with most of what you have said. a few of the questions i have after reading your post are: Dalal22 (discuss • contribs) 21:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there any more officiant way to communicate on Wikibooks or if it needs to improve or add in a section that allow more faster responses?
 * After working in the Wiki project and all the Wiki exercises, wold you change anything about it if you where the one in charge of handing out the questions or deadlines?
 * Finally is there anything you would have like to add to how the discussions where presented for the wiki project?

Hi, I would agree with you that overall I found the project complicated and didn't really grasp the concept. I found the same issue about the communication with my team as a lot of the time people were just communicating on Facebook as it's far easier than using the discussion boards. The other major difficulty I had with the project was that we were in our own separate groups yet each chapter had 2 or 3 groups working on it so it became confusing and messy. JamieKingGinge (discuss • contribs) 16:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)
The introduction section is very well-written, summarising many key points in relation to the subject matter. The presentation of a concept (i.e. in this case Fuchs and Sevignani) framing key ideas for discussion, and providing a foundational basis to proceed with an argument, is a really neat idea. It sets up what is essentially, the most theory-oriented discussion in the book, and this isn’t a negative by any means. In fact, it provides a crucial element of balance through which to address the more applied approaches that are perhaps more in evidence in other chapters.

A concerted effort is made throughout to communicate sophisticated ideas in concise ways. The overall structure is well thought out, and evidences deliberation, delegation and timely organisation. Coverage of many of the salient issues encountered in the module are touched upon, either explicitly or in passing, and this is a useful strategy for grounding some of the more abstract ideas.

Lots of live links are made – this chapter makes the most out of the platforms functionality, which in turn is read quite easily as a reflection made on the kind of platform used and the audiences for which you might be writing this chapter. This approach works very well overall. However, I think that more could be made of making interwiki links to various relevant sections in other chapters (especially, perhaps, chapters on Hive mind, or privacy in the Digital Age.)

The sections on Information Society and Network Society are particularly well put together. Although these are perhaps the least theoretically heavy, the way that you discuss and structure the concepts gives these sections a real sense of narrative. Some really good uses of examples and case here to illustrate points made. I would have liked to have seen some use of images or wiki formatting to break up the text a little bit more here, however. The same goes for the section on critical theory – however, this section is much less successful, as it seems rather abstract, and detached from the subject matter. It is factually correct, fairly well written and historically accurate, but perhaps the least satisfying section in the chapter because of this. The sections that immediately follow, featuring the material on social media, are very strong, although again, interwiki links to material on other chapters would make a considerable improvement to the argument overall and to the wikibook more generally.

The glossary is really useful – not quite exhaustive, but good for quick reference purposes. Use of interwiki links in here would have been useful. The references section again evidences research, reading and sharing of resources.


 * Satisfactory. Your contribution to the book page gives a satisfactory brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a fair range of concepts associated with your subject, and an effort to deliver critical definitions. There is evidence that you draw from relevant literature and scholarship, however your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is slightly lost, perhaps due to a variable depth of understanding the subject matter or over reliance on rote learning. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a somewhat circumscribed 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 suggests minimally sufficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Acceptable engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Limited reflexivity and creativity, and a somewhat insecure management of discussion pages