User talk:Tamoloriiii

Hello, I'm Tamara and I'm using this page as part of an educational class project I am undertaking at my university and this space is going to be used to reflect on why and how people use wikibooks and interact together on this platform.

Wiki Exercise #1: What Makes a Good Wiki?
'What makes a good wiki?

As a 19 year old student in this day and age, it is no surprise that I am a regular user of the internet- particularly of social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Only recently have I decided to make a Wikipedia profile and the difference between this and other social media platforms is very clear. Whilst on Facebook the user interface is very simple to navigate through and easy to operate regarding sharing thoughts and receiving quick answers- the layout of the Wikibooks page is a lot more monochrome and complex. It is very easy to share ideas on Twitter and Facebook for your entire follower/friend list to see and respond to, but on Wikibooks I feel unsure of who has seen my posts and to what extent it has viewed and interacted with. I feel therefore, Facebook and Twitter are a lot more effective in generating a collective interaction between different users and therefore gathering different perspectives and thoughts to receive a better engagement between members. Perhaps for more deeper ideas and concepts, Wikibooks may be the better platform to go to to interact with other people who are similarly patient enough to use this for the same research. However I believe if you're wanting a quick, concise interaction with another individual and therefore quicker shared responses- Facebook and Twitter are your go to social media as the simplicity of their interfaces makes it easier to be used by individuals of a range of ages and backgrounds and therefore you can reach out to a more diverse crowd a lot more faster. The language people use on Facebook and Twitter is also a lot more colloquial compared to the language used on Wikibooks which can mislead people into believing everything they read or hear is factual. However most of the information shared on Wikibooks tend to be more topical and insightful compared to the things shared on other social media platforms which can therefore generate more significant online engagement to an extent. Tamoloriiii (discuss • contribs) 23:03, 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 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, you clearly wirte really well, and you demonstrate an understanding of the overlying concepts. However, there are certain things that give away a need for you to reflect and engage a little more upon the reading that you are (or ought to be) doing. For example, the line in your post: I feel therefore, Facebook and Twitter are a lot more effective in generating a collective interaction between different users and therefore gathering different perspectives and thoughts to receive a better engagement between members. Effectivity is notoriously difficult to measure (and what you mean by this isn't clear) and this is the case with better engagement. What do you mean by this? I'm not suggesting this is wrong (in fact, I think there's some very interesting things to say about the quality of different kinds of engagement) but this distinction needs a bit more exploration.


 * 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  are beginning to discuss in an open and critical way (that is to say, you've responded to what other people are saying and are contributing meaningfully to discussion - arguably the civic element of wiki that you ought to be thinking about, which you clearly are). However, there are some assumptions in your work that you need to tease and and start challenging. For example, in one of your comments: Perhaps if Wikipedia put more effort into making this site more eye catching and simplistic for its consumers, they would end up having a lot more producers on their sites for sure. Perhaps, this is a crucial point? That this eye-catchiness is an issue that gets to the heart of distinctions between our status as producers and our status as consumers? It's a really interesting area that could do with thinking about.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 14:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments
I also agree with very much of what you have said in your post; the differences between using social media sites and using Wikipedia are also very obvious to me. I've experienced social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter as being much easier to navigate with Wikipedia seeming overwhelming to use. I also find it strange that anyone could interact with my posts on wiki sites without me realising or knowing, compared to social media sites where I can choose who I have as friends, who sees my posts and if my account is private or not. I never considered that Facebook could actually be a better platform to generate a collective sharing of ideas due to its easy accessibility and familiarity of user for many people. I liked your point that though this is the case the topics discussed tend to be more casual than on wiki sites, and I think that this could also be to do with the fact that on social media sites often we are consumers and discussers of content rather than we are the creators of it. Then maybe it could be seen that it is a certain type of person that chooses to discuss content through a wiki site rather than through SNS? I agree that the content on social media sites, though frequently shared and discussed, is not at the same level as topics that are discussed and engaged with more through wiki users. But I also like your point that people are very much aware of this, which leads to wiki being seen as trustworthy. I think that's where the issue lies in that often wiki could be seen as on par with an academic source when it is just, if not more open to interpretation, than social media site content. GemmaCampbell (discuss • contribs) 20:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the information you have shared in this post, especially the section about the type of language used on social media in comparison to wikibooks. reply made by user:sammyforbes Sammyforbes (discuss • contribs) 11:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Interesting ideas about what you think the differences are between the sites. I agree with your thoughts about the interface and you brought up a fair amount of good points.Aidancc (discuss • contribs) 20:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Data Trails
Undoubtedly, I am a very active presence online everyday and every night. It has come to the point where checking my various social networking platforms has become incorporated in my daily routine. Wake up- Wi-fi on- check notifications- then get out of bed. Some may even say I'm addicted. This routine includes browsing my Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat. However the extent to which I am visible for a wider audience to engage and interact with my posts, actually varies according to what social media platform I'm on. There are a number of different factors that encourage this to be the case that I will now discuss in further detail.


 * On social media such as Facebook and Instagram, I am a lot more private in sharing information. Although generally I have no problem showing my name and age to my list of followers, I keep the majority of my content- posts and pictures- private and limited to only those I have accepted to view my profile. This is because on these platforms the basis of my followers and family and friends I have visibly met in person and therefore have no problem with this information being visible to them online as it's nothing they don't really know.


 * On Snapchat I only tend to accept those I know to view my stories as my stories are mainly composed of footage of my friends or family- particularly my little sister- doing various of stupid things I deem funny. I wouldn't want to expose someone like my little sister to people I wasn't 100% sure of because I do think boundaries are needed in regards to who you show your personal things to- in my case my family.

However, for some reason I prefer my Twitter being public. I don't post a lot on my Facebook compared to my Twitter which I see almost as a daily feed of all my thoughts and things I go through during the day. I like how easy it is to gain interaction on Twitter and use its entertaining purposes to my value to generate some sort of 'publicity' to a wide range of people. I tend to follow people like me in the sense that they are young and share my sense of humour- even if we aren't from the same area. Although anyone can follow me on Twitter, sometimes I do 'cheat' to an extent as in block accounts that seem dodgy so they cannot view my posts.

I would say this theme of visibility links into my Wikibook project work because I don't feel half as visible here as I do on Twitter or even my private Instagram/Facebook accounts for example, just because it is a lot more complex to navigate aroung and I feel as if if I want someone to view my work here, I would actually have to share my Wikibooks link on my more trusted Facebook and Twitter accounts, jsut because I know they would give me the visibility and presence I want should I desire it. Tamoloriiii (discuss • contribs) 18:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments
From this post I feel that we share similar usage habits when it comes to social media. My participation on Twitter and Snapchat is much more active than that of my Facebook and Instagram. I think that depending on who we presume our audience to be, has an effect on what information we post and how visible we make these posts; as you said, some boundaries are needed in regards to who we share our personal things with. However, I find it strange reflecting on my own social media usage now, that Twitter -the platform I use most is the least private of all my social media platforms. I don't feel completely exposed, despite the fact that I do give out a lot of information about myself. This is largely due to the fact that like yourself, I see my audience on Twitter to be people of a similar age, which maybe creates a false sense of security for us? How visible we make our content on Twitter may be due to the similarity in age. Age may also be a factor in the nature of the content we produce for Twitter. What I produce on Twitter would most likely never appear on my Facebook or Instagram. Yet, I do feel that everything I produce is me, it's just various aspects of my personality. It's here that I think we can really reflect on C.G.Jung and Goffman's work on personas and impression management and how these theories have an impact on our online visibility. Perhaps the nature of the content we produce on different social media platforms dictates how visible we make these accounts, because we associate each platform with a certain audience, thus we alter our content to be what we would deem suitable for each of the platform’s consumers.

I also agree with your final paragraph, in that I have no idea how visible my wiki activity is, nor who is viewing it. However, despite it being a public platform, it still feels quite anonymous to me. This is probably because I am used to a social media set-up with my identity being the key factor in my communication and activity. Whereas there is no profile picture and no bio on Wikipedia for its users. Identity doesn't feel as important here, than on social media platforms. Do you think maybe the lack of identity attached to our wiki accounts may be the reason that we feel that our content isn't very visible? CaitlinCarbury (discuss • contribs) 22:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I feel similarly about how active my online presences is. I check my social media constantly and often it will be one of the first things I check in the morning. And while I don’t have Snapchat, I understand the mentality of wanting to keep it more private than other forms of social media, because there are some things people enjoy and find humorous that you just don’t want to expose other too. For me personally that extends to facebook and caused me to keep my twitter more separate from my real world identity. I also agree with your point about how on Twitter I see my audience as like minded people of a similar age, when in reality I really don’t know who any of them are and am really just building a false perception of who’s really seeing my feed. I also think that your right in the sense that blocking someone on twitter can give a bit more sense of security but really it feels like putting a band aid on a broken leg, since there are several ways to get around being blocked and still view and or harass a twitter user. Overall I agree with most of your points though, especially your view on Wikibooks and your visibility on them. BrianstirlingStudent (discuss • contribs) 23:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I like the point you make about sharing information with people based on whether you know them or not. I agree, as I also share more information with people that I have met in person. This raises the problem, however, with 'friends' on Facebook being a term for some people we barely know but have met once, and I sometimes forget that a lot of information about me is visible to these people.

You make a good point about the people we make visible on platforms such as Snapchat. On social networking sites, it is important to remember that it is not always just ourselves that we are making visible and this is a reason to make sure we have the correct privacy settings. This also leads to the problem that although we make sure we share only the information we want to about ourselves on our own profiles, we can't always control the information that other people post about us on their own accounts, e.g tagging us in pictures on Facebook, or sharing and re-tweeting our tweets.

I think you make an interesting link between the visibility we have on social media sites and Wiki platforms. While you say that you feel less visible on Wikibooks, I think that there is a big difference between the audience that we are visible to on Wikibooks and on social media. While we may feel, in some ways anonymous on Wiki, due to less personal information being shared, on Wikibooks every move we make is tracked as we leave data trails of comments and posts that we have made. I think this is also a lot different because while we can delete content from our online profiles on many platforms, posts that we have deleted from Wikibooks can still be found. Therefore, I agree that the topic of visibility is widely different on these Wiki platforms. Ailsaharv (discuss • contribs) 10:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload
I'm sure many of you reading this will agree there is an unreal amount of information easily available to us online. One can simply type in a word on a search engine and be exposed to millions of webpages associated with it- the mass majority being free which also benefits the user furthermore. However this alone comes with a list of negative factors that lead us to question whether this wealth of free information is good for us.

As much as it does help make our daily lives considerably easier by aiding us in gaining research for projects or even teaching us a new life hack for example, the internet is by far one of the most distracting things in our lives. We are always online searching new things, browsing through different pages, interacting with friends/family/strangers on social media- it's like we put a strong reliance on the internet without even realising. For many of us it is just incorporated in our daily routine.

But how does one deal with this abundance of information being dished out to them? How veritable the source of the information is, is one factor that helps me to decide whether the information being offered to me is worth looking into or not. Nevertheless on many sites you may deem 'trustworthy' are hyperlinks to other sites which can mislead the user into coming across something that is not correct or even add harm to your device. Therefore extra caution must be taken to make sure you're receiving information from commendable places. It is a known fact that many of the things we come across online are not true and therefore it is necessary that we double check the facts ourselves and do not become caught up in the overload.

While doing the Wikibook Project, my workflow has been a bit bumpy due to the amount of information being offered to me and me not knowing where to start as they are all to me very similar in the sense they are mainly books written by academics in that area. However this can of course been seen as a positive thing because the wealth of various information offered to us means that the Wikibook will contain a well balanced argument drawn from the research available to me and therefore readers will well informed.

Nonetheless to improve the workflow my colleagues and I have discussed diving up the information we have offered to us so we can analyse and introduce different facts from different sources so the information in the Wikibook is not repetitive yet still offers a lot of good information to the reader.Tamoloriiii (discuss • contribs) 03:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments
Hello! I enjoyed your post as it brought forward a lot of points I hadn't previously considered, namely the idea of deciding how veritable a source of information is. I'm curious as to how you personally draw the line? An online resource listed in the set reading is something that we all trust without question, but a grey area appears when sourcing information ourselves. Someone who had dedicated a large portion of their lives to researching and developing a bank of knowledge on a topic and chooses to post it on a blog is suddenly as credible and someone who writes a nonsense article on the same topic for a laugh. There is an "information overload" out there, but it seems a vast amount is going to waste should it not have the fortune to be published or acknowledged in credible academic circles. Are there certain websites/formats that you will automatically stay clear of? Or is it just something you take into account alongside the overall feel of the information being provided? Thanks! LydiaWithTheFringe (discuss • contribs) 19:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey! I found this very interesting, you looked at it from a different perspective from myself. I feel you made a strong point at how such a simple action such as typing a single word into a search bar can produce millions of results. I like how you opted to focus more on the side of how vast the internet is and the multiple different things we can explore, yet how dangerous this can be. The points you made about the risks of simply clicking on a hyperlink are concerning, despite being such a great tool people cannot help but hinder it by putting other people's devices in danger. I feel I am also in a similar situation with the use of Wikipedia being somewhat confusing, due to the new coding and whatnot that has been introduced to us. However the more we work on it the more we will improve and get better at using Wikipedia. Harry1875 (discuss • contribs) 11:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Tamara, after reading this I can't help but agree with your point about being reliant on the internet, I think our generation especially. Young people cannot seem to function without the stimulation of a device in their hands. We use these things for everything and they provide us with just about everything. You could spend hours and hours on your phone and still have things to read or post about or browse because it's endless out there. Wikibooks is a good way to organise content I think. I personally find the structure of these easy to look at but not so easy to produce Emmamackison (discuss • contribs) 15:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
After completion of the Wikibook project, I feel that writing and interacting with people on a platform such as this one is entirely different form interacting with people on more popular social medium such as Facebook and Twitter.

Although it soon became clear how to share different resources and ideas to people within our groups via the ‘discussion’ pages, the lack of push notifications on the Wikibook platform made it difficult to know when someone was trying to engage with you on the site. Therefore, when looking back at the lectures and reflecting on the Always-on Culture that one is worried to be immersed in (by always being active online or even by being online passively such as browsing different sites or remaining networked to people who can browse your pages whenever they like ), one can argue when it comes to Wikibooks this was not the case.

However, because most us Wikibook users in our different groups were using it with the aim of completing the ‘Wikibook Project’, this meant that the themes and concerns of the module remained at the forefront of focus when undertaking various tasks and engaging with one another. On other social mediums, working on a group project may not have worked as well as it did on Wikibooks because of how easy it is to get distracted by adverts popping up online. This has serious implications on peoples personal online agendas because of how much additional information fed to them is personalised according to their past and present behaviour on the internet.

Moreover, our profiles on different sites are usually masked by a sort of online identity where in short- we try to present ourselves in the best way possible to appear a certain way to our specified audiences. Usually we do this by for example- uploading good pictures of us or posting good news/achievements to emphasise the positive moments in our lives. This is rarely done for the opposite (bad pictures of us/bad news). . When working on Wikibooks one does not half to feign a specific ‘online identity’. Our profiles are very brief and with there being no pictures of us, and the use of nicknames as opposed to full names, it is to an extent anonymous and therefore one does not have to worry about how they appear. Additionally, the audience we are targeting on Wikibooks is different to the one we target on other social media sites due to the content we are offloading here. As they are mainly of academic interest the audience that tends to follow it mainly consists of academics, students, or just those with a keen interest on the subject matter we are discussing. Also it's very strange how much trust we have on people here as anyone can edit your work without your permission- goes to show what type of people are accessing the site and how much mature and trustworthy they are compared to 'trolls' on Twitter for example.

Hence having to write for a small, supportive audience in a research environment, although the content was more researched than what we would normally share on Facebook/Twitter etc, I would say it was more effective. This is because the amount of pressure on us was reduced as we didn’t have to worry over impressing anyone likwe we may do with our peers on other medium. Thus, since the peers we were writing for were ones doing the same project, it was easy to feel supported and helped as everyone was going through the same learning experience. Sparking up discussion and debate from peer reviewing worked effectively because of the reasons mentioned above. As we all worked on the same thing specifically for the Wikibook project it can be understood a sort of Collective Intelligence / Hive Mind was underway as people shared their various bits of knowledge and resources together so everyone was learning something new and engaging at the same time.

So therein I would say Wikibooks worked as an effective learning environment in encouraging us to engage on an online platform without the distractions and lack of academic engagement that would undoubtedly happen on other sites.Tamoloriiii (discuss • contribs) 20:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment

Hey Tamara I strongly agree with the point you make linking the "Always-on Culture" to wikibooks; I too found myself forgetting to check the discussion pages because I was very rarely notified of any changes on them. Although I did end up scrolling through a lot of pages in order to find a reply or an answer to my questions, which could be argued as being very immersive and persistently connected, it often felt like more of a chore than a learning experience. However, I agree with you as well when you say popular social networking sites like Facebook (which a lot of us tend to use for group project engagement) can be much more distracting than the wikibooks format. I think because wikibooks is a platform designed purely for research and engagement, it makes us feel like we are in a work environment and therefore allows us to stay more focused on the task as well as staying professional. The subject of online identity on wikibooks was something I hadn't thought about too much but I see your point about profiles being a lot more simple and less personal than they would be on other sites. Again I think this links back to the lack of distractions in a work environment; wikibooks tries to focus only on its research and information sharing capabilities and not the creation of profiles etc. As you said I think this has to do with combating so called internet "trolls" so the space can stay as academic and professional as possible. Cathym97 (discuss • contribs) 11:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Tamara, I really enjoyed reading this post, I feel that we shared a lot of similar opinions on the Wikibooks project as a whole. I did feel that the site was a lot more pressure than other media outlets, due to the problem you pointed out with the lack of notifications. I connected my wiki account to my email and still failed to receive notifications unless I was logged in to Wiki. I liked what you said about 'Online identities' and how you were open on how you change on different media sites. I agree with the idea that the primary reason our wiki pages are so bare is due to everyone participating in the project only being active on the site for academic purposes. I wonder if we would have went more in depth with our profiles had we considered using it beyond the realms of the wiki-chapter that we were working on. The one aspect of your post here I would disagree with is the idea that wikibooks are a more efficient means of communication in relation to academic work. Just due to the fact, mentioned prior, that you need to be logged on and actually active on the site to notice if anyone has communicated with you. I feel that the way that groups are set up on Facebook messenger, Twitter or Whatsapp would all have been more effective, just due to their effective means of alerting you to notifications. I think your conclusion summarised well my personal experience with Wikibooks, despite it's flaws it did allow me to focus completely onn my academic work as opposed to getting distracted, which would inevitably happen on other social media sites. Harry1875 (discuss • contribs) 12:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)
The introductory remarks at the beginning of this chapter are quite visual and alert the reader to the image of a doubling – a theme which is implied throughout the chapter in terms of information flows and how they are regulated through both connectivity and user behaviour. Very interesting, and sets up the narrative of the chapter as a whole.

This narrativising work is extended into the accounts of Chomsky, Adorno and others – a well written and concise summary of each approach and some critical commentary included. I think that more could be made of making interwiki links to various relevant sections in this, and other, chapters (especially, perhaps, chapters on News, Evidence and Memory in Online Communications, the section on private sphere linking to Privacy in a Digital Age, or certainly there are whole sections in the Digital Labour chapter that are of immediate relevance here.) The narrativisation is excellent on the section involving the work of Pariser, and extending the Five Filters to Five Data Points.

Some really useful work on personalisation, and excellent coverage of information flows. These sections feature evidence of wider reading and research, as references to specific peer-reviewed materials to substantiate the argument. The discussion of data trails is good – however, it doesn’t attain the same level of criticality as these other examples (although some references to academic sources are used). This section is also an example where the text-heavy nature means that it’s fairly heavy going to read. Use of wiki commons images to illustrate the argument would help to not only break up the text, but to make more of the platform’s functionality.

Media is already a plural term.

Some more joined-up thinking could have extended and beefed up the arguments in relation to the section on “Control over what we see”. There’s a subsection on “filter bubbles” here which seems to repeat already-mentioned material. A wikilink to other parts of the chapter where this is already discussed would probably have done just as well as these few sentences, which sort of appear as an anomaly in this section.

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, although my feeling is that this could have been extended significantly, especially through looking at what other chapters were writing about, and making the connections between there and the arguments here more explicit. Some of the formatting seems to go awry in the middle, so a little more joined-up thinking and a little more effort in presentation there would have been useful.


 * Poor. Your contribution to the book page gives an acceptable brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a qualified familiarity with concepts associated with your subject, and although there is an effort to deliver critical definitions, the grasp of conceptual and analytical issues although reasonable, tends to be a little limited and insecure. 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 limited 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 minimally sufficient 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


 * Excellent. Among other things, these entries will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. They will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. They will address the assignment tasks in a thoughtful way. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts. They will be informed by serious reading and reflection, are likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.


 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, featuring discriminating command of a excellent range of relevant materials and analyses
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material to a wide degree
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument through highly original 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);
 * originality in evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections);
 * significant 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