User talk:Sirrinari

This is the discussion page for Sirrinari (discuss • contribs) 12:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Reflective Account
An Internet of Everything -Wikibook Project was an attempt to harness collective intelligence and it required commitment and participation. Dahlgren would call that sort of participation as participation in the media: it took place in media and the outcome was media content. Dahlgren also links participation to political activity. And like in politics also in civic participation the reasons for people to act tend to be subjective ones. Volunteered participation in media which gives the contributor a feeling of efficacy - that is what Wiki processes should be like. However, the creation of An Internet of Everything -Wikibook was not a voluntary act of participation and time limits and the size of the group made it rather demanding.

Perhaps the most difficult thing of the project was to keep the group together. The concept of combining multiple level collective intelligence did not work out as well as it could have. Reading Week intervened the project. Our group of five did not manage to meet face-to-face before the break; our communication was limited to a Facebook group chat where we shared our thoughts about the project. So, most the work was done individually online. That should not be (and personally I don't think it was) a problem - after all that is how Wiki chapters and pages traditionally are created.

People had many other deadlines due right after the break and those who did not struggle with deadlines traveled away. So it turned out that there were only handful of us creating content and discussing the ideas before and during the Reading Week. When the others were done with their other essays, the discussion page was already full of content. The project was supposed to be collaborative, hence everyone should take part also in planning and brainstorming as well as the actual creation of the content. One week before the project was due, half of the group were still missing. Those who started early felt like it was difficult to proceed when others were not contributing into the ideas that were suggested. On the other hand, the ones who were not taking part into the discussion right in the beginning felt that it was difficult to join the conversation later on and were afraid that they would mess up the planning if they intervened. Do I see a tiny paradox here? The communication between contributors was clumsy because the platform is not designed for groups of that size (over 20 contributors). It was easy to miss an important update and difficult to get everyone engaged.

I heard someone commenting the situation by saying: “I have no idea where to start. I guess I’ll just wait until someone tells me what to do”. That is not the idea of collective work. Collective Wikibook Project is supposed to be a democratic performance where there is no leader and the content is created together. But just like democracy, collective intelligence can not work if the people do not participate. One can not complain about election results if one did not vote and one can not complain about the subtopics of the chapter if they did not say anything when that was discussed. We did manage to produce a decent chapter into the An Internet of Everything Wikibook but the workload was not equally divided.

The whole idea of collective intelligence is that individuals act towards one goal. They produce individual pieces of information which are put together. That of course requires individual work and initiative. Wikibook Project is a group project but it is more like assembling a puzzle than painting a one big picture together. Sirrinari (discuss • contribs) 15:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments
I really like a lot of what you have wrote here, it is very clear and concise, with my own group we made a Facebook chat, then decided to make a group instead, where we then copied over our chats in order to show that we had been active outwith the website. Do you think that the group of 25 odds, should have done something similar, in order to keep all of the people in the loop rather than just keeping to our initial smaller groups, because I personally feel like my lack of communication amongst the rest of the users was a hindrance to my personal development on the project? I really liked the part you wrote on the democracy of the project, it really translates well to the actual way-ness of the project, however, if somebody had not commented on your work, and you had been very much involved, then is that still democratic? It happened to a couple of different people who were very much constantly involved but lacked feedback, this really does show an imbalance, because the people who did all their work quickly, also were then apathetic towards the rest of certain people work because they had felt they had done everything, this is just an opinion of how things could possibly have transpired and resulting in the direction of the Wikibooks imbalance. AdilAslam1 (discuss • contribs) 10:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You had a clever way to overcome the problem. That might have been a good idea, but I am not sure if it would have worked that well with 25 people altogether. There would be so many messages to go through anyway. I didn't keep that much contact with any particular people (my group of 5 or other smaller groups). I was rather talking to everyone on the talk page and hoping that someone will respond and say something as well. It is actually strange how all those people I worked with are just random usernames in my head, not actual people with faces. I think that Wikibooks as a platform didn't work well and if someone didn't get responses to their messages it might have been because of no-one noticed rather than no-one cared. But that problem, in my opinion, leads from the fact that people started working on the project in very different times. In the beginning it was easy to be heard and get help, because everyone was still lost, but later on those who started early had an idea of what to do and focused on them. I admit that when the deadline was getting closer I concentrated on my own work that I was buried in and did not go searching if someone else needed help or had questions. Sirrinari (discuss • contribs) 16:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with what you are saying. There was no real structure to this assignment and the size of groups made it hard at times. I know we were in the same group, and when the five of us decided to meet face to face, all of us already had gone our separate ways and chosen what topics we wanted to work on. I found myself working more directly on the talk page with other group different groups more then our own. However I found the talk page overwhelming to follow, just hoping I would choose the same topic and duplicate the same information as others. Maybe if their were more topics to choose from and the groups were smaller this assignment would have been more organized and gone a lot smoother. With group projects you always have the people who take charge and do a lot of the work, and the people who wait until the last minute and prefer to just skate by. Group projects are difficult in that retrospect, but makes collective intelligence even harder when everyone wants to work at their own pace. Kacollins95 (discuss • contribs) 12:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I think everyone will get it true when you mention about the situation of your group. Communication appears to be difficult if only online communication is made, let alone in the collaborative project of size of 23 people. I fully understand the way you take the democracy likely as the contribution made by groupmates. Democracy requires contribution of everyone, for example, to vote at least, so does the wikibook project. No one can just excuse themselves for "no idea to start with" or "difficult to catch up". Everyone has his/her responsibility to actively take up a part to in charge of and brings up ideas in discussion. Otherwise, Wikibook would not be happening. This reminds me of the elaboration of any collective activity in Web 2.0, raised by David Gauntlett in 2011, which is particularly enabled by people’s passions. If everyones tends to take the role of a relatively passive one, we couldnt have make it. Chuyanlol (discuss • contribs) 17:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading your work and found your experience of wikibooks to be extremely similar. I like how you said that we began the task through media (Facebook group chat - similar to my group) and then all of the content finalised online. This comment seemingly links to some of the main topics we have discussed throughout the module such as: is media taking over society and how much agency do we have over our media use? Agency works well within your piece as all of your work was done online and there was no face-to-face interaction which demonstrates the power which digital media is having on users. Also, this could be talked about in terms of media convergence since you used Facebook as a way of interacting with Wikibooks and I find this interesting as although my group used a similar method, I definitely felt meeting face-to-face was essential. I like your phrasing that our collective inteligecne in this situation was to reach one goal together and I think this links well to cognitive surplus as inevitably, we are all working to contribute our own opinions and work to enhance the platform of Wikipedia. LucyClaire (discuss • contribs) 21:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

{{reply to | Sirrinari} I mostly agree with what you are saying. One thing bothers me, though: civic web and collective intelligence are based on assumptions that everybody act voluntarily, they work in the field they are experts on and they are passionate about. The time we were given for this exercise did not allow me to act spontaneously, or be passionate or to become an expert on any of the given topic. I see this exercise rather as an experiment on how the internet community might work in circumstances of a limited time where members of a community are forced to work together. The awareness that it is a part of the academic assignment adds additional pressure. Collaboration and engagement had to give way to frustration and discouragement. Katka.wicz (discuss • contribs) 20:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I definitely agree with your statement that it was difficult to keep the group together at times. This project felt as though the group was very unimportant- which I believe lead to people disregarding communication between groups. However it was definitely important for the groups involved to have some form of communication in order for this task to be completely collaborative and for the book itself to flow effectively. Although the individual groups were lacking in mentality I believe there was a lot of strength between each group working on a chapter- in terms of communication on discussion pages regarding content and wiki mark up techniques. Making this a collaborative project allowed for more stability and confidence when writing each individuals contribution, as there was a large group of other students to consult when a problem or question occurred. Christiejayne123 (discuss • contribs) 11:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Information Overload!
Think of a library full of books. All the books are full of information. That is a lot. Well, Internet is full of those libraries. It is very useful when I need to search information. I can find information related to pretty much anything from internet. However, it is easy to get lost in the information jungle. One link from Facebook to BuzzFeed and suddenly I have read 5 different stories there.

The data available online is not only for private internet users. Data exhaust is a trail of clicks that an internet user leaves behind. That trail has economical value as it is making internet profitable. Availability of abundant data enables companies to provide niche markets anywhere in the world and advertise the product directly for those who would most likely be interested in them. When I get those advertisements or suggested sites I might get very annoyed because they interact my internet use, but sometimes they are just what I have been looking for.

Nowadays we don’t just go to internet to find information we need but we go online to check what has happened in different social networking sites we are part of. We check facebook feed, emails, instant messages, likes on tweets and comments on blogs. There is constant newsfeed that we feel like we have to stay on top of.

To control that overflow it might be wise to think on how many pages you want to have a presence. There was a time when I checked my Facebook once a week and was actually able to read all my friends’ posts. Now, even though I check it approximately five times a day, I can not be bothered to scroll through the whole news feed. And that is just one social media. I don’t t join every trendy social media because I don’t think I would have time for them all. I also try to cope with the information feed by not allowing social network sites to send me push notifications. I do not want to be constantly poked and pushed if I have other things to do.

It is possible to reduce the newsfeed on social network sites. That reduces the unwanted information we get. For example in Facebook you can follow some users and ignore others while still being ‘friends’ with everyone. It has been suspected that this sort of selective exposure might create a filter bubble. If you follow only those who have similar ideas and views you receive only one type of news and get a one sided understanding on issues. Over time, this could cause for example political polarization, because people are not exposed to other parties topics and ideas.

Reading Fox News can be a good thing to do every now and then. It makes me, if not understand why, at least acknowledge that there are people who think in a certain way that differs from my point of view. Even though I read news from Fox news I do not blindly trust on what those articles say. Receiving lot of information requires critical reading. It is not hard to mix up Buzzfeed article with scholarly essay but sometimes the line is more subtle. However, I think that it is better to have too much information available than too little. That enables us to choose what to believe and find out what is going out in the world. It allows us to make decisions and be individuals. If we find ourselves from 1984 scenario things are bad.

Sirrinari (discuss • contribs) 16:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments
Very good point about the 'filter bubble'! But the author probably didn't consider that most of us (for example me) unfollow people because we're fed up with food pictures, instragram filters and people who simply post their every move. Not much political thought here. But yes, there is a bubble, and I wasn't aware of it until I read your post, so you certainly gave me something to think about (even though I don't know if I can go full-on and read Fox News just yet without puking) (Greg & Simon: Sorry for my strong language) ! And I totally agree with your second point, too: our use of the internet has shifted more and more from actually looking up information to social networking and 'keeping on top', even though the amount of information has become more and our social ties looser. Weird how this develops. --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 17:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You might think that the people you unfollow do not affect your opinions but it might actually have a slight change. I brought Facebook up because it has been studied and also because I can give a personal example. When I lived in US I become Fb friends with people who are very religious or conservative. After reading their statuses day after day, I got tired of always drawing God into them or super conservative views of abortion etc. So when I unfollowed them, I didn't have to read those anymore. But that meant that I blocked that way of life and those opinions from my life and settled into my nice liberal atheist Facebook community. That is a bubble. Just the fact that I do not see those updates and opinions does not mean that they do not exist but it might lead to the assumption that my opinion is the right and most popular because everyone else around me thinks the same. Those bubbles do not necessary have to be political, they can be bubbles of rich people, racists, students... That is why I think that it is good for us to allow some of those opinions that contradict with ours to get into our online or real life. Of course we do not have to tolerate everything but maybe not just stay in our comfort bubble. Sirrinari (discuss • contribs) 13:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I came here on the reccommendation of Chickpeanut ;). Very good entry, it is very easy to read. It is interesting, that Chickpeanut and me just started discussing on how people tend to mostly consume information, that supports their way of thinking and that it is very unfortunate, that we thereby get a very onesided view of the world. So when you describe how you filter the information you get, i.e. the posts on facebook, this is also a way of filtering opinions, isn't it? I don't mean to criticize you there, because I do that, too and as Chickpeanut just said completely right: Some people need to to that because they are annoyed by baby pictures or food postings or racist posts...And it is very interesting then, that you actively read Fox News to get a different view on things. I just recently realized, that for instance in the whole refugees debate I got so tired of understanding certain people and always trying to explain to them argumentatively why it is e.g. racists what they are saying, that I don't even want to hear their so-called "arguments" anymore. Finally I have a question to your last sentences, saying that we can make decisions on our own. Don't you think, that although the internet seems to be a place with no Gatekeepers, we are still triggered by opinions of other people? I know this seems to be completely opposite to what I said at the beginning, but there is the theory of Noelle about the spiral of silence, claiming, that when people have the feeling that their opinion is not the public one, they tend to not say their opinion loudly. When less and less people with that opinion state theirs, more and more will have the feeling, that this is the thinking of a minority and it goes on like a spiral. This theory only talks about the "feeling" of a public opinion - so as I wrote on my discussion page, people who only consume information that is to their liking soon have the feeling to be part of a majority, although in fact they aren't, they are just part of a group that shouts the loudest. And in an environment like that, is it not easily possible for people who are not so thick-headed in their thinking to adopt other people's ideas (instead of deciding by their own) to be part of a society because they are afraid of being left out? Let me hear your thought about this! :)- SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 19:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I explained the Facebook filtering in my answer to Chickpeanut. What I want to clarify is that the filter bubble is not just Facebook thin. Also the fact that you can create 'My news' in BBC news app and follow just the news you want to, or just read the newspaper that has the same political view as you do (although they should be objective), shrinks the view of the world you get. I agree with you that we are still triggered by the opinions of other people. Isn't that also part of the bubble we create - Feeling that we are part of the majority because that is all we see? However, I think that internet is right now a place where people are quite comfortable saying what they think. In other environments (workplace, social circles etc.) the problem of feeling that one should think this way and not that way seems to be stronger. There are many different views of this world and opinions about small issues put on words in the net. Major news organizations might always report things in one way and the businesses will always only talk about their achievements, but it is might not be the whole truth. People just have to search a little and be open to different views. I think that we have the opportunity to make up our own ideas and believe in what we want if we are willing to step out of the comfort zone (in the extent that some of these decisions are not actually ours to make but are determined by the way we are brought up and possibly even programmed into the genes we have). Sirrinari (discuss • contribs) 13:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Speaking about all the possibilities we have online now to filter, search for and structure information and also the possibility to contribute (with a comfortable feeling, as you say), it is interesting to think about whether it is cultural or technological determinism, that creates this bubble. Is it us, asking for means to filter the information load (for whatever reason, because we only want to read what supports our opinion or because we are annoyed/overwhelmed by the amount)? Or is it technology, which is providing so much information, that we have the urge to control the mass somehow? But then isn't it us, who create this information amount? But is it only because we have the technological possibilities (starting off with book print to nowadays the internet)? I could go on an on and surely not find a clear answer to that, but maybe this is an interesting point to add to the discussion? - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 13:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * {{reply to | Sirrinari} Hey, I want to use your Bubble - Source for our book page (in a good way;) ) - I hope you don't mind? :) - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 17:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I loved your point about how a few years ago, even social networking sites had less information on them. In there infancy fewer people had a social network site, and therefore a significantly smaller amount of information was posted in this format. I also agree with your point about how, even though it is possible, it is not always wise to filter what you see on Facebook- or similar sites. Although I do find it annoying when I see mundane posts that are very irrelevant to my everyday life, I also have the contrasting opinion of finding alternative views of certain topics interesting. Although I don't post anything political online myself, I do enjoy reading what other people have to say on a particular matter- even if I don't agree with it or find the person to be out of order. This was particularly true last year during the build up to the Scottish Referendum. It was such a controversial topic, and interesting to hear an opposing side to the debate. I personally was not swayed by the views of others on Facebook, but I know others who relied upon social media to gain their information from both sides before making a decision on how they would vote. During times like this it is important to have an overload of information as it gives people enough information to made in informed opinion on a very important matter. Christiejayne123 (discuss • contribs) 19:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading your take on Information Overload! it's very true that there is an abundance of information available regardless of what you're on the look out for. It can become quite daunting at times and because there's so much to look through it almost appears as if some things are missing from time to time. Trying to find a good backing track for a song for example on YouTube can seem like an impossible feat because it's so crowded with covers or tracks that can't be used. But like you mention when you scroll through sites you find links that interest you and suddenly you're way too many articles in too deep in Buzzfeed compared to what your plans were. I've found that simply going on Facebook to check something rarely ever is the case, it's most likely that I'll end up clicking a few links for a while and looking around. To make sure that I can manage my time better I've had to think of a few systems and timing my use of social media is something that really helps me to ensure that I don't spend all of my time staring at a laptop or phone screen. It's an interesting idea regarding Facebook that you bring up as well, how you can be friends with someone but choose not to have their posts show up on your feed and it's definitely something I think is a good idea because people I interact with on a daily basis can sometimes get lost in the middle of people I haven't seen in ages.TrishEl (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Visibility and online footprint
I suppose it is rather difficult not to have an online presence nowadays. Everyone is expected to have at least an email account. Now that I have been applying for summer jobs online I have noticed that only way to apply for most of the vacancies is through internet. E-mail is always required so that the potential employer can get back to you and quite often you have to create a new profile to even be able to apply for the job.

People seem to expect that everyone has also a Facebook account. In my previous school all the information was shared on Facebook. That was the place where you got to know about the events, cancellations, coursework, information about productions… I belonged to many different groups that were somehow related to my schoolwork. Facebook was the main mean of communication.

I still use Facebook mostly for communication. I do not update my status very often, although I try to be more active now when I’m living abroad, so that people in Finland would know that I’m still alive. I also have WhatsApp and Snapchat with what I sent messages to my friends and Gmail to sent e-mails. Even though I only use them for communication they all have required me to create a profile.

I do not even know on how many websites I have a presence. I have account where I never upload videos, I have a couchsurfing profile, hostelworld profile and many others. There are gaming sites where I played when I was a kid and there are those profiles I have made when I have been applying for a jobs. There are profiles I have created but never used and most of them are under my own name.

What I have written and the details I have given on my profiles are under my control. I never add too much details and I block unnecessary people from seeing them. Of course the information is still there. However, there are lot of information about me online that I have not uploaded. When I google my name, different profiles that I have not used for ages pop up. There are also articles about me or articles where I have been mentioned, the oldest dates back to year 2000. I was six years old! My contact information, old track and field results (which I am not too proud of) and random videos and pictures can be found through Google.

There was a time when it was not considered wise to appear online with your own name. Back then nothing came up by googling my name. But that time has passed. If there were no information about me online that would be considered strange. I do not feel comfortable sharing everything on Facebook or on other online platforms. I do not like the idea that I am part of this gigantic network and by following right strings someone can find out everything about my life, but apparently I can not control it. Not completely.

Sirrinari (discuss • contribs) 16:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments
One thing you've made me realise from reading this is that I actually have no idea how many different online accounts of me exist on the internet! Now that i think of it, I've had to create multiple accounts for multiple different sites in order to access them/contribute to them, whether that's an online game, online shopping, social networking accounts or just in order to download something like a song or an image from a website. It makes me wonder how much of my personal information is still stored around the internet and where. It always confused me why some accounts I signed up for required details like my address when it wasn't totally necessary for what I was using the site for. This, along with your point about most job applications taking place via the internet, opened my eyes to how much we do online that used to be done manually. And, maybe this is just me, but sometimes I cant help but feel guilty about how easy and convenient communication is for us now compared to how it was for those who lived before even phones were invented. For example, way back before our day, if you wanted to get a job, it was totally up to you to build up the courage, ask around and try to sell yourself face to face, whereas now we have the convenience of writing up an application, editing it, making it sound great and on top of this, having lists after lists of job openings that we can just click and apply for. Although this is great and very convenient for us, I can't help but feel that it limits us from developing our 'face-to-face" social skills, which count for so much more than online eligibility, in my opinion. 14buchananL (discuss • contribs) 14:01, 21 February 2016


 * You are right, it seems to be easier to search for a job these days when we don't really have to leave the house to apply for a job. But then again most of the employers want to interview applicants so the face to face experience has not quite disappeared. I think it is practical to have all the open vacancies listed online; internet is a good way to connect the employers and potential employees. That may make it seem like applying for a job is too easy but we must also remember that because of all that information being available online for everyone, there are also lot more people applying for the same vacancies. The competition is greater, which on the other hand allows the employer to pick the best and most suitable applicants. However, I have to mention that, despite the internet and it's greatness, I had to go walk around knocking on the doors and leaving my CVs in order to find a job this very autumn. Sirrinari (discuss • contribs) 15:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Both of you are totally right about the job application process. So much of it has turned online and I remember when I was sixteen going to the stores on the high street and handing them a psychical CV. Now it does seem so much easier to get a job online. I personally have my jobs through word of mouth and face to face contact, but I feel like the internet provides so many great opportunities to get jobs in other cities or countries. Sirrinari, you made a really interesting point in what you said about finding things about you, online, from when you were six years old. Our generation is the start of the generations whose whole lives will be online. I have too many photos of six year old me on Facebook, but this next generation is already being smeared across the internet with birth arrival announcements. Their privacy is just another thing in the hands of their parents, and depends on whether those parents understand that as they are sharing about their lives, they are also sharing something which is being logged for a person to go back to when they are an adult. The same as photo albums, but at the world's disposal. Pretty scary thoughts actually on our responsibility for not only our visibility but others, as well. PurpleHan (discuss • contribs) 14:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I totally get your point of view. I think it's very sad that our gerneration or the society depends that much on the internet. If someone struggles with technologies and the internet they would probably have real problems to be up-to-date, have a well-balanced social life or even to find a job. Of course it also has its advantages, some processes are much easier and faster. But I don't like the idea that I might depend on something that I cannot really control. And don't you think that it's a bit scary that we don't even know on how many websited we're registered1? They're probably so many that we just lost the overview. And the whole social media and always-on culture can annoying. I know it can be very practical because everyone is always contactable, but sometimes you just want to have some peace. You mentioned facebook, did you check what people can find out about you? Askoelsche (discuss • contribs) 15:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Educational project
Introduce an interesting website... That should not be difficult. The internet is full of extraordinary websites, more or less interesting blogs and social networking sites. However, I might not be the best person to talk about them as it happens that I manage to avoid most of them. Websites listed on my “favourite” panel and “frequently visited” lists on Safari are pages like Gmail, Portal, Facebook, dictionary, weather forecast website and Momondo flight search. Not very interesting.

Maybe I should be concerned. After all I do spent a great amount of time on my computer every day. Where does all that time goes to, what do I do in the internet? I do not have a twitter account, I do not publish photos on Instagram or try to find matches on Tinder. I'm not that interested in social aspect of internet.

That does make me sound like a very stereotypical Finn. Antisocial and introverted person who does not interact with people even in the internet. Am I the Finn from the Scandinavia and the World? Scandinavia and the world is a website that publishes comic strips with focus on cultural differences and characteristics. Originally it was about Scandinavians, but somehow other countries have sneaked into the strips.

If you look up the website you can find Finland appearing in some of the comic strips. Finland is the guy in white shirt with blue cross. He has a green knit cap on his head and a sulky impression on his face. If you search the comic strips where Finland appears you will soon notice that he is not the most social character there. Look at polite Sweden or Iceland who has a bright smile on her face or USA who is always positive. Even Scotland is more positive than Finland. Stereotypes might not always tell the whole truth, but there are reasons why those stereotypes have formed. Even if you do not find those characteristics from yourself it can be fun to skim through these comic strips.

Sirrinari (discuss • contribs) 13:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments
Hi Sirri, your article cracked me up, you have a clever way of writing things. I found the bit on 'Scandinavia and the World' really interesting. It reminded me of the penny papers the UK used to have, which would contain the social commentary on politics on the day. There was one penny paper I learned about from the 17/18th century on Scottish Highlanders. They used a stereotypical name and fashion, but in a very derogatory situation. This reflected the way the English viewed Highlanders in the day. Its Really interesting how this is a long tradition for making a statement from the 'public's' point of view, which has somehow transitioned to a more common and fun style online. In contrast the American newspapers feature loads of comics, like 'Calvin and Hobbs', which have been going for decades, as the light heated and family-friendly part of the newspapers. But the UK comics in the newspapers are usually still very political today. It's interesting that Comics seem to be in high demand in many different cultures. PurpleHan (discuss • contribs) 19:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I really enjoyed this web page. I was a little sceptical at a first glance. It seemed to be aiming at a quite restricted public. However after a closer look, I started finding it really funny and smart. I find it interesting when countries acknowledge their difference o the world and make fun of it in a harmless way. The page seems to be consisting of a lot of cultural knowledge and can be used as a nice tool to learn about different countries and the world. It is interesting how these types of illustrations have gained popularity throughout the years. I think it is the simplicity of the art and the powerful meaning behind them that made these comics strips so widespread. They seem to be especially popular in France, one of the best-known examples being the Charlie Hedbo comic strips. Although it is more relevant towards the subject of satire. It is interesting to see how these comic strips can be used for putting different messages to the public and seeing how the world interacts with the strips. Toriettaaw (discuss • contribs) 16:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sirrinari, and thanks for sharing this website with us! At first I thought it was just a comic page, which I really enjoy (I subscribe to a few cartoon and comic sites on Facebook). But then I found, rather than just making fun of common stereotypes, it's actually quite educational about Nordic culture. I really enjoyed browsing through the comics and find out about your countries and others up north. I'd like to see more comics like these used in education to make cultural studies interesting for children. --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs)

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
This is a good personal reflection with good humour without being too colloquial. You demonstrate a level of reflection on the exercise which could be linked more explicitly to module themes and key thinkers. You've demonstrated competence with wiki markup and have demonstrated a good level of engagement through your comments on others' posts

A post of this standard roughly corresponds to the following grade 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. Sprowberry (discuss • contribs) 10:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
You have a good range of contributions in the Wikibooks chapter, but the responses to peers' posts have been neglected at times. You demonstrate a good understanding of wiki markup and have embraced the ethos of engagement and collaboration with peers. Your contributions to the chapter and wiki exercises show clear evidence of reading secondary literature beyond the set reading and demonstrate a clear understanding of the module content.

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives an excellent brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is an excellent range of concepts associated with your subject, and the effort to deliver critical definitions, drawing from relevant literature and scholarship, and your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is very much in evidence. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover an excellent range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

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

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content to an appreciable standard (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Good 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

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 14:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)