User talk:TheDoctor1888

Hey there folks, this is my User Discussion Page for TheDoctor1888 TheDoctor1888 (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

A Little About Myself
I'm a Film & Media Studies student at University of Stirling, Scotland, but reside in Kirkcaldy, Fife, home town to such names as Adam Smith, Ex PM Gordon Brown, Artist Jack Vettriano, Actor Ewan Macgregor, Coldplay Bassist Guy Berryman, Author Val McDermid, Darts Champion Jocky Wilson, Footballers Colin Cameron & John Thompson, to name just a few.

Away from my studies I work as a Freelance Videographer, at times helping out to shoot weddings or conferences, rather boring stuff really, but on other occasions I find myself filming Heavy Metal gigs or interesting scenes from some Short-Films coming out of Fife.TheDoctor1888 18:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

TheDoctor1888 (discuss • contribs) 12:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercises
Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload

When it comes to something as valuable as information and data, my thought process is rather simple - I feel more is better. Yes, there is perhaps too much information for any one person, and of course this can be distracting, but I am of the belief that it is down to us to navigate the web in a manner that delivers us the information we need at the time we need it. If we are selective in our research and use critical thinking to bypass 'bad data or useless information', then the only downside will be the amount of time invested when sourcing information. My point being, is that it is ultimately down to us. We, as consumer, student or even just regular web surfers, ask for more info, more devices and more bandwidth, so I see no reason to complain about there now being so much readily accessible information in the digital world of 2016. TheDoctor1888 18:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

TheDoctor1888 (discuss • contribs) 12:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercises
Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account

In terms of group projects, my Wikibook experience in creating An Internet of Everything was a rather unique process. From a collaborative perspective, tasks were carried out according to plan and as expected when working on a project such as this, ie, discussions over content, delegation of work, and overall planning. Interestingly though, with a large scale project this, especially being dependent on collaboration, there was still scope for each member to showcase their individuality and be creative with their own section. Obviously this can lead to issues, whereby every person involved needs to stay cohesive and on-point, so any one straying off course in terms of content, formatting or style can harm the overall look and feel of the finished project. However, I found this aspect to be rather intriguing, mainly because it provided the opportunity to collaborate with many different group members on many different sections of the book. We all knew that, on a whole, it was crucial to the process that we talked through idea's, issues or creative decisions. So even though some people were working on just one section, and others on countless more, individuals were still helping out others with tips or links to sources through our help and comments section. This falls in line with David Gauntlett's analysis in terms of Web 2.0 and Cognitive Surplus, whereby he states "harnessing the collective abilities of the members of an online network makes an especially powerful resource or service" (2011: 7), but he also adds something I found to be very true, saying "any collective activity which is enabled by people’s passions becomes something greater than the sum of its parts.’ (2011: 7)

In attempting to summarize my involvement, I would say I was perhaps a little slow to start off with, in fact before I had started work on my section, a few others had already set out the blueprint for the entire book, and had the various sections plus help area's and so on. But in the nature of the collaborative process, those who appeared to do more work never complained or expected extra praise. Moreover, those who felt more comfortable using this type of platform and work flow, were free to jump back and forth to help out group members in any way possible. Perhaps this was the underlying achievement, the fact there were very few boundaries, giving collaborators the chance to work at their own pace, and essentially, the things they felt capable of doing. With notions of civic value in mind, it could be said that the civic engagement and democratic functions found in this Wikibooks project allowed for free expression and movement of all contributors. TheDoctor1888 (discuss • contribs) 10:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

TheDoctor1888 (discuss • contribs) 11:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments Section
Hi TheDoctor1888! I agree with you saying that the project allowed to express in a free way and brought a new experience for all contributors. Of course the start is always a little slow especially when looking on the fact that everybody was new to the project. But as you already mentioned in the quote by David Gauntlett, collective activity which is enabled by peoples passion becomes something great. That fits to the statement by the author Pierre Levy that "Collective Intelligence is the capacity of human collectives to engage in intellectual cooperation in order to create, innovate, and invent." What else could you think of would be a good thing to be constructed by a mass of people? The structure of your post is good and I liked that you started with a short description of the project. SimonBrinkmann (discuss • contribs) 23:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
Your contributions pick up towards the end, particularly with regards to interaction with colleagues, which suddenly springs to live with the final exercise. This is supplemented by adequate volumes of engagement and contributions with other group members. The wiki exercises show a limited understanding of module content and mainly deal with generalisations. You have undertaken some secondary reading, but your work needs further academic rigour and sustained engagement with concepts and relevant secondary reading.

Content (weighted 20%)

 * 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.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of limited critical engagement with set material, although most ideas and procedures insecurely grasped
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material limited, displaying a qualified familiarity with a minimally sufficient range of relevant materials
 * Argument and analysis:
 * poorly articulated and supported argument;
 * lack of evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * lack of evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections in discussion);
 * evidence of independent critical ability limited, due to the fact that your grasp of the analytical issues and concepts, although generally reasonable, is somewhat insecure.

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

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 14:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)