User talk:Shekkkkk

Hi, I'm Shek and I am going to be creating a wikibook for the Digital Media and Culture module. So I'm in a class project and I'm interested in explore more about the potential of the wikibooks. Shekkkkk (discuss • contribs) 18:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: What Makes a Good Wiki?
Social media platforms are closely linked to our lives that can aid workflow and share ideas. Because there are a huge number of people whom participating within this platform and it is spreading of spontaneous. Therefore, the social media platform is ubiquitous and also very suitable and consistent with the current pluralistic society we live in.

For me, I think social media platforms are diverse and provide a chance for people to communicate with each other. It shortens the distance between people and it is easy for people to share their opinions. Since social media platforms play a great role in globalization, it has the power to circulate messages to every corner of the world, which means that they can be shared with people everywhere, and identify and help those in need on an unprecedented scale. For example, when I write some stories and information on the blog or share some stories on Facebook and twitter, even when I send the email to other people. Those are the one-to-many or one-to-one format. But the Wikipedia has transforming monologue into the dialog, which is fully the many-to-many connectivity.

Moreover, I used to using various social media platforms to express my feelings and mostly it is based on a subjective point of view, basically, it is all about personal stuff and I can finish it by myself. Although other people can leave comments on it, but they cannot change what I have written in the content. Sometimes, people can be impolite and don’t show respect to making personal attacks and say bad words. However, Wikipedia gives people a chance to discuss and improve the contents to produce better answers and insights. So it focuses more on how the people communicate and respect to each other. Furthermore, I think the wiki engagement let people reach a common understanding and develop a cohesive strength that makes a positive contribution to the development of human society. Shekkkkk (discuss • contribs) 08:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: Marker’s Feedback


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 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, certainly, making more creative 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. I like that you have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 10:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: Comments
I like your idea, that wiki has transforming monologue into a dialogue. Melissa0908 (discuss • contribs) 20:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Data Trails
In this discussion, I will be looking at my personal experience of online visibility and data trails, and also how it relates to the Wikibook. Firstly, I will talk about the social media platforms that I have chosen to interact with and share my personal information. I would say I am relatively visible online, and my data are present in the network in the form of semi-public. People can see my basic personal information through my social media sites, such as people can find me on Facebook by searching my name, and they can see my birthday and my personal profile picture, but they need my permission to see more information. Also, my Facebook page is private and it is a friends-only page. I choose to share my information only with my friends and family, because they are the people I know, and if I choose to open all of my information and make it freely visible online, it is very dangerous that someone might steal the personal privacy information.

Basically, I can control all of my information online; such as I have opened the privacy settings of my Instagram, so only for those people who allow seeing my pictures. Besides, I can choose what to show in the public area and what I don’t want to show. However, I don't know whether the network and data trails will be leaked out through other channels or not, because sometimes even if I set the privacy settings, it is still not sure that the information and data can be completely confidential. There are some hidden troubles of network security, for example, the positioning system on Facebook will let others know your location. Moreover, even you set all your information in privacy. Others may still be able to steal your information through other data path, especially the network bank or personal address will be particularly dangerous.

Secondly, I will talk about how visibility and data trails relate to the Wikipedia/Wikibooks. Comparing with my social media platforms with the Wikipedia/Wikibooks websites, the visibility of the Wikipedia/Wikibooks is not optional and it cannot control by people because all of your steps and things are transparent and visible by other people. According to new findings in a national survey shows that 86% of internet users have taken steps online to remove or mask their digital footprints—ranging from clearing cookies to encrypting their email, from avoiding using their name to using virtual networks that mask their internet protocol (IP) address. This is interesting to see how the opposite side of Wikipedia takes place. Because in my opinion, this is on the contrary, this visible condition for the Wikipedia/Wikibooks web page is more safety and traceability.

Bibliography: Lee R., Sara, K., Ruogu, K. and Mary, M. (2013) Anonymity, Privacy, and Security Online http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/09/05/anonymity-privacy-and-security-online/

Shekkkkk (discuss • contribs) 22:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Comments
Given that Facebook can utilise your data as soon as you upload it to that social media platform and that, in accepting their terms and conditions of use, you agree to this, it is very difficult to control your data. Therefore, it is not necessarily so that, as you say, you can control all of your information online. I agree with your comments on users masking their identity and instead presenting a persona, as I also do this in some cases, limiting the amount of data which is directly attributable to me as a 'real' person, as I feel this is important in my professional life. I have not gone so far as Mendelson and Papacharissi suggest, in making multiple social media profiles which are targeted at a particular audience, I simply filter a highly selective version of myself to the outside world, whilst reserving complicated and potentially very personal information about myself to those people I see in person. I suspect that we, as general consumers, don't fully understand the ways in which the data is gathered and used and that we might be more concerned than we currently are if we did know. What do you think? 09:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Vickthestick (discuss • contribs) 09:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response! I think what you said is so true because we are not computer professionals, so we don't fully understand the ways in which the data is gathered and used, so we don't know the seriousness and harmfulness of this. However, compared with before, nowadays people's vigilance are rising, so more and more people choose taking precautions to limit their visibility online. On the other hand, it maybe because the Internet fraud and network information steal events happened more frequent now, so it increased the people's attention of network security. That’s why people began to think about their visibility on the Internet and the data tracking which affects their own security.

Shekkkkk (discuss • contribs) 14:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Very interesting post!! I found your thoughts on Wikipedia/Wikibooks in regard to data trails interesting. I agree that Wikipedia is safer due to its increased visibility and traceability. I believe Wikibooks definitely benefits from having its traceability inherent to its use and well known, rather than social networking sites which obscure this information in small print on the terms and conditions. However, I think this is also in part due to Wikipedia's non-profit status, meaning they have no reason to exploit users data. Do you think that sites like Facebook could benefit from making their users data trails, and the people/companies accessing them Public?

I disagree with your stance that you control all of your information online. Although you have set your accounts to private, thus limiting the information the public can access, Many third parties are able to access all of your information, and track your online browsing habits. They can then exploit this data, for example, for use in advertising. I was also curios as to what your thoughts were on Facebook and third party companies being able to access your personal information?

I definitely found it interesting however that so many users are now taking precautions to limit their visibility online. This is indicative of the increased awareness users have of the information that is being exploited. Dcunningham1017 (discuss • contribs) 09:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments! Your comment actually gave me a lot to think about how the Facebook and third party companies are being able to access my personal information, because like what I have mentioned above even if I set my information in privacy, it is still not completely confidential.
 * Actually, we are all using our own electronic products with a personal login. So this is likely to lead to other sites have the opportunity to invade our equipment. As you said that many third parties are able to access all of the information and track people’s online browsing habits. There is much personal information on Facebook, and then our bank information can easily be leaked to third parties through Data Trails or data tracking with Facebook.
 * Therefore, I think the third party companies being able to access my personal information are very disturbing. But we can control it, for example, if you don't want to take the risk, you can freely close your social media platforms, and people can only use phone calls and text messages. Nevertheless, in today's society, almost no one can do it, and that’s why the network security problem is grabbing people’s attention more and more.

Shekkkkk (discuss • contribs) 14:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I do like that you mentioned the dangers of making your private information available to everyone on a public platform like Facebook, since someone could indeed just steal your basic information and pretend to be you online. I think something that you forgot to touch on would be the fact that anyone can see the comments you make on social media platforms, and people could try to piece together an idea of your personality based on the remarks you leave and the posts you like. You mentioned that the positioning system on Facebook could let other people know exactly where you are, and that is exactly correct. Posting that you're out of the house may attract some unneeded attention, and posting about going on a vacation before you've left will definitely alert any unscrupulous people lurking on your timeline that they can make a move on your house with impunity.

The fact that almost nine-tenths of the internet's population have tried to hide their data trails is astounding, and I think it speaks volumes about how paranoid people can be regarding stuff like google or ads in general. A lot of people I know take these steps because they say they "don't want google to track them any more than they already do," and that always gives me pause. These people have basically accepted that they're leaving trails wherever they go that can't be covered up in addition to the ones they CAN cover up, and that's kind of worrying.

Wiki*edia is a project where data visibility is actually very necessary, since without it no one knows who edited the page and whether or not they can prove their sources are legitimate. Deleting one's data trail on Wiki*edia would be severely counter-productive because of this. This place feels to me like somewhere on the net that I don't have to worry about what I leave behind, because it's all for a good reason that each of us is so visible on this website. ZachIsWack (discuss • contribs) 13:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response! I agree with what you said about Wikipedia features, such as Wikipedia is a place that we don't have to worry about because it' s all for a good reason that each of us is so visible on this website. Besides, your message also reminds me, which let me feel about the Wikipedia is an educational site, so all data and information are open to public and everyone has convenient communication and ability to improve the web page.

Shekkkkk (discuss • contribs) 14:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload
In this discussion, I will talk about the information overload, and how I deal with the abundance of information. When there is so much information out there and that it is easy to be distracted, firstly, I will sift and exclude repetitive information, and then try to classify the information to have a list of different headlines and direction, after that, I will get some important information listed in subheadings under through the headlines.

Besides, I deal with the overload information this way because some information is repeated or useless, and those large amounts of information will only increase the burden with no practical application. However, information classification can give people specify of direction, by screening out and allow it to narrow the scope of the information, which is easier to find out the key information. The contributing factors for the decisions I make in dealing with this abundance of information is that narrow the scope of the information and make the direction of the information and classified the data collection, which can organize and find out the most important information that can take advantage of it in a short period of time.

Moreover, for the Wikibook Project, this workflow can also be applied. For example, we can draw up the research direction under the selected topic and proceed with the information classification. After that, people can discuss different headlines, then each person can be responsible for a certain direction of a data collection. This work process can narrow the scope, and so as to accelerate the speed of information search. This also can let every person has clearly organized and responsible to the detailed analysis of the topic. Furthermore, to improve this workflow, we can exchange after people have finished reading each other’s work, and see if they can add the information. In addition, people can also check other people’s topic and go through the post to see if there is something not conforms to the theme or central content, and there might be some duplicate information, so they can change that and give some supplements. Shekkkkk (discuss • contribs) 00:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Comments
Your method of sifting through repetitive information is very efficient and is similar to how we have set up our tasks for the wiki book project. By sorting the information into subheadings first, it is easier to eliminate any information that is not deepening our understanding of the topics further. This is very useful for a project such as this because we want our wiki book to be interesting to the reader and not just informative. Repetitive information will just waste time and disengage the reader.

Rachel Howie (discuss • contribs) 13:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and I totally agree with you about we want our Wikibook to be interesting to the reader and not just informative. Because if the content is attractive and instructive, people will be more willing to read and understand, which is a win-win situation. Shekkkkk (discuss • contribs) 17:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account

 * • Sharing resources, ideas, links and feedback with your classmates


 * • Maintaining engagement with the themes and concerns of the module


 * • Writing for a small, supportive audience in a research environment


 * • Practical application of the principles of peer-review, discussion and debate


 * • Developing a reflective practice on how writing in publicly-viewable, moderated spaces shapes the way that people engage with one another in everyday life

The wiki online project process, which let me learned about collaborative nature and the application of collective intelligence in various aspects and different forms. First of all, we can share the collected information on the Internet through the wiki dissuasion page. As well as share resources, ideas, the links and feedback with each other. Then, we found that all the problems and mistakes can have the online communication and dialogue directly with other people, so people can improve and solve it in time. Because the website is openness and it developing a reflective practice on how writing in publicly-viewable, so everyone can see and everyone can put forward their own ideas and opinions, thus the content of the project concentrate the wisdom of many different people, which is more completely and diverse.

Moreover, we concern of the module and we check and pay attention to the page every day to see if there is any updates or new stuff. Also, we try to maintain engagement with the themes that when we have new ideas or new contents, we just share and post it in the group discussion page. Meanwhile, people moderated spaces shapes the way that people engage with one another in everyday life. According to the huge number of people participated that I also found there is a problem. For example, when the contents of the discussion page are too tedious and complex, which is difficult to find updated content and only when people @ you to get the new information. This means unless people mentioned you, then you will know the content of the discussion has updated, otherwise you need to find the new information by yourself, so sometimes it can't follow up the progress in time.

Firstly, the topic for my group project was 'Privacy in the Digital Age', and it was a broad topic to talk about, so we focus on the 'Privacy and Leaks' and it helped me to undertand how the online privacy and visibility affected people’s life like the celebrities' scandals. Besides, our group had a face-to-face discussion and communication in the offline. When we had our face to face group discussion, we focus on discussed and shared our ideas and thoughts, and then we recorded them to sifting and decided what we have to do in the final project themes and choose our subtitles. Secondly, we also discussed the task assignment, such as each of us was responsible for one subtitle to do the research and writing, which avoids the problem of two people to write the same subtitle. At the same time, we illustrated how to writing for a small, supportive on a research in the environment, so we can avoid providing large amounts of information. Finally, to realize the practical application of the all of the peer review and the debate, we talked and cut the information through our discussion, which only leaving important and useful parts to make it easier for readers to read.

Overall, I found the Wikibook project really helped me understand about how to developing a reflective practice on writing in publicly-viewable and practical application of the collective intelligence. Also, because our group focus on the 'Privacy in the Digital Age' and it helped me to better understand through reading our page, I also can get the idea of visual surveillance and many social media platforms to see how visible are we online in nowaday society, and to realise the online privacy is not stable.

Shekkkkk (discuss • contribs) 23:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Comments
I learned many things about science here, but unfortunately not all those books are finnished, so i am workng to get those boks done

Content (weighted 20%)
The introduction section here is a little brief, however it draws its strength from being well written, in an accessible language. In addition to this, very usefully, each section has been laid out in bullet point format, with a very brief summative sentence for each section. The sections themselves represent wide coverage of many of the main issues surrounding privacy in contemporary popular culture. However, of particular use here – and very much a strength of the chapter as a whole, is the section that draws together the issues raised here, and applies these to other areas of the wikibook as a whole, explicitly making more of the platform than would otherwise have been, had the groups decided to write this chapter in isolation. To be clear, the execution of this section could have been better – greatly improved through more systematic use of interwiki links to draw attention to the specific pages, sections and issues from the various pages in the wikibook which you were commenting on. Another specific section here that could have been improved is the section on celebrity vlogging. Whereas it is true that there hasn’t been a lot written on this (yet – there is a growing interest in the scholarship, and we can expect much more appearing in the short term), it should have been acknowledged that the scholarship on celebrity culture as a whole is very well established, and that most of the issues raised in relation to YouTubers (e.g. “the price of fame”, privacy issues, and the implied “fair game” logic) are covered in existing debates on celebrity. All that said, the potential for this last section was recognised and other parts of it fully engaged with existing research in the field, and therefore is rewarded.

Structure-wise, the chapter seems to hang together fairly well – the definitions section at the beginning, whilst by no means exhaustive, gives the reader a sense of the subject matter under discussion early on, and also some useful working definitions of key terms used. Some typo errors and inconsistency of formatting appear dotted throughout, but these are not the norm for this chapter. Odd inclusion of bibliographical material of theorists, but no discussion or application their ideas in that section (especially in the case of Fuchs, where it lists a few of his research association and academic achievements. A little bit more joined-up work would have improved on this section enormously.

The unusual step of including a survey and posting the results here is an extremely useful one. Something that absolutely HAS to be thought through in ALL future work is that if one is conducting a survey (even if for demonstration purposes, as included here) or indeed ANY work with people, one must go through an ethics approval process – this is to ensure no harms (relative or absolute) occur for researchers or participants. This process will become more apparent later in the degree programme, particularly in final year projects. 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. Some of the formatting seems to go awry towards the end, so a little more joined-up thinking there would have been useful, but overall good.


 * 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


 * 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.


 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, featuring discriminating command of a good range of relevant materials and analyses
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material to a fairly wide degree
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument through judgement relating to key issues, concepts or procedures
 * evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position);
 * evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections);
 * clear 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, although at the higher end of this grade band