User talk:Samwar97

Hi,

This is my discussion page. I'm creating a Wikipedia profile so I can participate in an educational Wikibook class project - which involves weekly posts and engagement with other users. This space is going to be used to register some elements from the project.

Samwar97 (discuss • contribs) 13:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: What Makes a Good Wiki?
Both Twitter and Wikipedia are popular websites that rely on the production of content by users for the website to remain consistently active. However, the way in which the users engage with them are mostly different. For example, on a social media website such as Twitter, people are more inclined to write in an informal manner (e.g using slang or acronyms): this is most likely because there is a more personal element to the website. The site is centred around the user themselves, and therefore discussions on topical events can occur with a bias from the user i.e. the user can share their opinions/views.

On the other hand, Wikipedia aims to be written from a 'neutral point-of-view", with its users writing in a formal and factual manner. This is most likely due to the essential function of the website: to provide people with factual information. Another difference between Twitter and Wikipedia is that Wikipedia gives people the option to edit other people's work and discuss with them possible changes. Whilst, then, it can be said that there is a similarity with how people interact on Twitter, the fundamental difference is the point of the conversing in the first place - to get to the most 'correct' way of presenting information.

A social media website such as Twitter is also designed different from Wikipedia in order to suit its users' needs. When a user tweets something, people aren't allowed to make edits to it. Instead, they have the option to simply respond to what has been said. Twitter's interface - its mobile app in particular - remains basic and easy-to-use so that its users can quickly let others know what they think. For example, if someone agrees with something that has been said by another user, all they need to do is click the 'heart' button that appears below the tweet in order to like it.

Wikipedia's interface is much different, and at first can even appear to be intimidating. However, it is relatively simple too - if you want to edit a page, you simply click the edit button on that page and then use the text box underneath to write what you wish. As Wikipedia aims to be as informative as possible, there is no text limit and posts can always be edited, meaning that information is constantly being updated/kept active by its users.

Samwar97 (discuss • contribs) 13:25, 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.


 * Good. Among other things, good entries will make a clear point in a clear way. They will relate concepts to original examples in a straightforward fashion. They will make effective use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons). They may also demonstrate a broader understanding of the module's themes and concerns, and are likely to show evidence of reading and thinking about the subject material. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.


 * 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 indicate a critical way of thinking about what the brief is asking you to do and addressing things in some depth. Not far off excellent, and a think with a little more practice in wiki markup, you could do some excellent work. However...


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – none undertaken. This would effectively halve your mark. A real shame if this happens in the assessed briefs, so please address this.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 10:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

By comparing Wikipedia to Twitter, I think you have effectively outlined the key differences between this site and all other forms of social media. Your comment about the difference in tone that users apply in each of their social media engagements is perhaps one of the key elements that might help distinguish between the two.

You appear to have some prior experience in using Wikipedia and I found this post very helpful and informative- especially since this is my first time using the site and I am still learning as I go.

Rachel Howie (discuss • contribs) 14:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visiblity and Data Trails
In terms of online visibility, I would consider myself to be considerably 'visible' across the majority of platforms that I am a user of. However, I also believe that each platform is unique and individual in the way in which users communicate with each other, and therefore the way in which I present myself in terms of 'visibility' varies considerably.

For example, if you were to go on to my Facebook profile, you would be able to find out a number of things about me simply by glancing at my profile: my birthday, the town in which I live, the university that I attend, and where I currently work. I think there are a number of reasons why myself and others feel obliged to post this information on a website such as Facebook. One of them is the fact that the website itself encourages all of its user to put in this information in the first place - it is built into the infrastructure of the website's design. When I first signed up to the website, I got asked to input all of these bits of information about myself, and, as I'm building a sort of 'picture' of myself, I went ahead and did it. Facebook also does this to allow its users to connect with each other more easily. As it states what university I go to in my profile, it allows other people to search for me and then add me as a friend or get in touch with me. I've found that being 'visible' is essential on a website such as Facebook that is built on social interaction between friends, especially over the messenger app that is provided through the website. It is perhaps the easiest way online to find people that you know and then stay in touch with them.

Other forms of websites that I have used in the past include online forums and, whilst I would consider myself to be quite 'visible' on them, the way in which I am is different simply because of the purpose of the website. For example, on a film forum, all that I am required to input is a username, a picture, and then a small bio - the bio remains an optional part of the profile, and sometimes even name/age is optional too. This is because you aren't necessarily presenting your personality to others on these types of websites; instead, it's more about finding others with the same interests and discussing your ideas with them, or perhaps asking some questions that you need help with. I think the interesting thing with these types of websites though is that they often can/do lead to friendships online and, unsurprisingly, the next step people take after making friends is to then add each other on Facebook in order to get to know each other more personally.

I do consider myself to be a 'visible' online presence across the majority of my social media accounts that I have but, as discussed, I think depending on the type of website you are using, the necessity for full 'visibility' can vary.

Samwar97 (discuss • contribs) 16:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I found what you said about Facebook encouraging its users to share information about themselves when creating the profile interesting. I agree with you that this does make this user more visible on Facebook and that this is one of the main purposes of the platform - it is "social" media.


 * However, there are also ways to limit your visibility on sites like Facebook through the use of their privacy settings. For example, the privacy settings on my Facebook account limit the amount of access people who are not my 'friends' have to the information I have on the site. I have also noticed a trend recently on Facebook which has involved some of my friends changing their names slightly to make themselves harder to find. Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 13:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with what you said about Facebook asking for more information on us. Twitter just has one vague box for us to put our information in. While Facebook has multiple questions to fill out from your sexuality to phone number. I also found it very interesting what the above comment said about their friends changing their name a little bit to become harder to find. I haven't heard of anyone doing that but it is a good idea, but I'm one of those people that will friend anybody if you just send me a request. (Mpurcell22 (discuss • contribs) 11:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC))

Hi both - thanks for your comments! The privacy settings on Facebook went completely over my head as I was writing my post but you're completely right about Facebook giving you the option to limit how much information you want to put out to people who aren't your friends. I also think the options such as sexuality are great as over the years Facebook seem to have been adding in more options so you can create a more accurate profile of yourself. I wasn't aware of people changing their names either but that's very interesting that people do that - although I'm wondering if it maybe says something about the privacy settings if people feel like they need to do that to stay 'hidden'.

Samwar97 (discuss • contribs) 16:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload
From using the internet on a daily basis, it has become quite clear that there is always something of importance going on at somewhere in the world. Arguably, the main thing that is required in order to manage all of this information efficiently is finding out what type of information it is, how it is given to you, and where best to keep it. For example, I know for myself that I regularly get my due dates for classes mixed up for each other, especially when the dates for classes are so close together. In the past I’ve tried diaries, making sticky notes on my wall, but ultimately I find that for myself the best way is to keep it simple with a note on my phone of all the dates - that way they are all in the one place, and, for the most part, always ‘on’ me.

When it comes to information on a much larger scale such as worldwide news, a different approach is necessary. In order to keep myself up to date with the biggest news stories, I have the news widget active on my phone which updates every so often with breaking news. As well as this, I have actually found that Twitter is a great way to not only get news in general, but to get the news that you would be interested in in the easiest/quickest way possible. I think its interesting how apps such as Twitter display ongoing events to their users through the trends - however, I know for myself that I tend to not look at them, and just follow what has been going on on my timeline instead (in the past, I’ve also found the trends feature to be quite glitchy anyway).

This semester, I have definitely found the Wikibook much more challenging than any of my past assignments in previous classes. In terms of my workflow, I’ve had to find myself managing my time more efficiently as even though I have weekly readings that I also have to do, the Wikibook project is something that is always ‘on’ and has weekly due dates. I think at first it was quite daunting to be given something that has constant engagement, especially on your own at first, however as the weeks have went on the website interface has became much more friendly to me and I find it generally easy to use. The weekly assignments are definitely more difficult than the group project that is currently ongoing - with the group project, it’s obviously much easier to divide up the work between people to therefore give everyone a good shot at getting the work done in the best way possible. I also think that with the group project, there is also an element of not wanting to let others down by failing to hand something in on time/complete work by a due date. It puts much more pressure on you, however I think in this case that is a good thing. Samwar97 (discuss • contribs) 18:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Hi Sam, I find it interesting that you keep your deadlines on your phone. I find it easier to write everything down on paper and have a hardcopy. I feel like keeping things on my phone is more unreliable, whereas on paper it's set in stone. Physically ticking completed work off is more satisfying than simply having an electronic reminder I find. It is interesting how you said how you keep your due dates on your phone so that they are always ‘on‘ you. It's almost similar to when people have their phones on and are connected to the internet, they are always online. It seems like a safety net, something that has become a necessity.

I find myself to be different where I only keep up with the news if I am scrolling through Facebook and a headline catches my eye. However, with news in general I like to watch television, rather than looking online. The majority of the news I find is through Facebook, from what people have shared or videos that people themselves have filmed, which links to ‘Citizen Journalism’. I find watching raw footage of news that people have filmed themselves more intriguing and emotionally engaging.

With the Wikibook’s I found working in a group more difficult. Although there are people to help you, I find the distribution of work quite difficult so that no one in the group overlaps with their topics. It has its advantages and disadvantages. Interesting post, I really enjoyed it! JayeRaiyatMedia (discuss • contribs) 00:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree with what you said about ticking off work on your phone being more satisfying than doing it electronically which is why sometimes I do wish I took down notes/reminders on paper instead! I think my issue is just that I tend to end up losing my paper copies whenever I make them, and so I find it easier to just store everything on my phone because I tend to always have it on me.

I'm glad you said that about Facebook though as I tend to do that sometimes too when it comes to news - most of the time I just find the overall layout of websites such as Facebook or Twitter much cleaner than a news website, especially when you know that they are maybe also catered to your likes/interests?

The overlapping of work is definitely the most difficult part of the group project, and I think it will be interesting to see how everyone has managed it by the time the Wikibooks are all complete.

Samwar97 (discuss • contribs) 13:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
Overall, the Wikibook project was quite an interesting assessment but also extremely challenging. Having never used any of the Wiki sites before as a producer of content, it did take some time to get used to formatting and how to navigate the website - the chat function, in particular, seems a bit outdated compared to the more modern formats of communication that I think a lot of the class have grown used to. A major challenge was working across three different forms of communication - Wikibook discussion pages, Facebook messenger, and face-to-face discussions. The most beneficial part of this was probably how it allowed to us to engage with some of the themes of the module - by having all these different forms of communication, it really allowed us to think about the way in which we use these different mediums. For example, during the majority of the Wikibook assessment - and the project in particular - I couldn’t help but think of some of the issues with ‘Always-On’ culture. As it is a collaborative project, you don’t want to let anyone down, meaning that for the majority of the time I found myself ‘Always-On’ - constantly tethered to my phone even more so than usual.

One of the best parts of using the Wiki sites as a whole is definitely the collaborative way of learning. At first, it was tricky to get used to - mainly due to how I think a lot people (including myself) have became so used to independent learning over the past few years. However, I soon learned to really find the format of the website beneficial to my learning. It’s really interesting that as a whole, the class has created a vast amount of research that is available for free online. It really feels like everyone has came together to produce the best work possible. Getting feedback on the Wiki entries from classmates was probably one of my favourite aspects of the module. In the past, we have only gotten feedback from tutors which is obviously incredibly important to further our learning - however, I thought it was really interesting that we were given the freedom to simply open up a discussion on anything that anyone had said. We were encouraged to help each other out on a weekly basis, which really made it feel like a collaborative and also friendly project.

The past few weeks have been challenging with meeting the expectations of this assessment - but I think overall I can see the benefits of having it formatted in the way in which it is. Wikibooks allows us to fully put into practice some of the theories which we have been engaging with in class and in our readings over the course of this semester. Rather than simply writing an essay discussing the theories, Wikibooks allowed us to become part of a community and then analyse our own behaviour, which I think helps to understand the concepts more in the long run.

Samwar97 (discuss • contribs) 11:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)
The introduction section is incredibly well-written, and summarises some of the points which follow. I think that a concerted effort could have been made to narrativize the chapter before proceeding to the discussion proper. The overall structure that follows is well thought out, and evidences deliberation, delegation and timely organisation. Coverage of many of the salient issues surrounding the relationship between technology and self are included, although the overall feel of the chapter tends towards high-end description, rather than analysis, debate and argument.

That said, some of the sections are incredibly detailed and well written. Where theorists are listed, often it is the case that the coverage is characterised by a list of accomplishments next to some biographical and bibliographical detail – without going into discussion and application of the theories themselves. Here, you have managed to avoid the trap of biographical list, but the movement towards discussion and application of the theories could have been more detailed and applied to the issues under discussion in the chapter.

Some of the sections are really well written, but lack evidence of research – particularly in drawing from any peer-reviewed material, which is essential to helping establish a written argument. The whole section on “Forms of self-representation” for example, has large chucks of text that contain no reference to this kind of material (although, to be fair, there are some interwiki links apparent). Again drawing from this section as an example, there could have been more use made of interwiki links to other chapters.

This could have benefitted the chapter enormously. Such interwiki links could have been extended to include more reference to other chapters in the book, such as connecting your subsection on “distrust of AI” and “newspapers facing decline” to the chapters on Online/real-life divide and news, evidence and memory respectively. This could also be useful in relation to interwiki links on the same chapter: for example, the whole section on blog/online diaries – I would have thought this would follow on quite neatly from the discussion of Jill Walker Rettberg’s work, particularly in relation to her book Blogging! (This section didn’t have a single link or reference, and where the relevance to concepts in this chapter may be considered self-evident to the author, it is the author’s job to connect these ideas through argumentation).

Later sections (including the material on dating sites, gaming and video) are much stronger in this regard, and do all of the necessary things outlined above that are missing from other sections.

Overall, reasonably well put together, especially considering the number of total students working on the chapter.


 * 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%)

 * No evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * No engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Little or no use of discussion pages