User talk:Thl00021

Online Visibility
Before writing this, I decided to search my name followed by various social media networks on google to see how visible I was. Turns out there are a lot of people called “Tom Lee” around the world so nothing about me immediately came up. However, the addition of “Stirling” to the search took me straight to my respective social media accounts. To my surprise, my Facebook showed pictures from past years and all the things it claimed I had an interest in when I was about 14 and actually bothered liking pages. After seeing this, I decided to clean up my Facebook of any old interests. This made me realise that how visible you are to total strangers or friends of friends is very important. What they see is their first impression of you, just like meeting someone for the first time. Different social media services show different information about you to total strangers. My Facebook will show my university, the town I live in, a collection of pictures and few things I am interested in. I am ok with this, as these things will help someone determine whether I am in fact the “Tom Lee” they are looking for. You have very little control on Facebook. You can control who sees your posts and your friends list, but other information may be out in the public. There is also the speculation that Facebook sells your information to third party companies to help them with marketing. As a marketing student, I don’t see the problem. For a free service that we spend every waking moment using or thinking about in return for someone putting up an advert for a car magazine, because that’s apparently what 14-year-old me was interested in, on my news feed that I am very unlikely to even notice, Sounds like a bargain to me.

(Thl00021 (discuss • contribs) 23:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC))

Annotated Bibliography
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3954788/ DeCamp, M., Koenig, T. W., & Chisolm, M. S. (2013). Social media and physicians’ online identity crisis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 310 (6), 581-582.]

This piece, by DeCamp et al., looks into the distinction between a personal and professional online identity in relation to physicians. The writers of the article use past findings and concepts of personal and profession online identity and look at how this applies to physicians and where it has become and may become an issue. They also use their experience from the medicinal world to develop an opinion. Their research investigates how and when personal and professional online identities should be differentiated and whether this is actually possible. This is useful to me as it offers a unique perspective to look at online identities rather than just the average Joe’s personal online identity. This article may have limited influence in my study as it does not give a perspective of online identity that is relevant for the mass audience. IT concludes by suggesting that personal and professional online identities can not and should not be differentiated as they are both part of each other. Rather, one online identity should be shown to a standard that is ok for a physician to show in a public, many-to-many, space. This article may not influence my research significantly, rather it will influence how I look at online identities in different contexts.

Comments
&#8593; Back to top

Collaborative Essay Reflective Account
Wikibooks is a database of learning content created by the public. In the same way that Wikipedia pages can be edited by anyone, Wikibooks pages can also be edited and created by anyone. It allows anyone to create a page to develop literature on any topic that they can share and collaborate with colleagues. We have been using Wikibooks to plan and create a collaborative essay on a topic given to us.

It gives academics a place to create and share content where it is visible to other academics or students of their field of work. It has helpful links and categorizations to allow the public to filter through the many pages available to find literature on something they are interested in. The public can easily access literature that they are interested in and allows them to comment share their thoughts easily. Personally, I do believe that Wikibooks is not very well known. Wikipedia is the most known branch of the Wiki services and it is not common knowledge that there are other services offered under the Wiki brand. Wikibooks would not be my first stop for literature, but I can see that it would be great help for academics to collaborate. The Wiki brand also has a stigma of being unreliable due to the process of creation, anyone can create content, so the content may not be reliable, However the service does offer a good starting point for research as it can point you in the direction of what to investigate. You can use it as a source for ideas, rather than a source for Knowledge.

Wikibooks provides a Institutional repository to allow institutions, Like the University of Stirling, to manage, display and share digital literature. This platform aids collaborative research by giving colleagues a place to create content and edit this content from anywhere, rather than being in person with your team and developing work on one file on one computer. Due to the strikes that took place in the main bulk of this assignment, we were unable to meet as a group as we could not all attend the seminars. This format allowed us to work on the project online, without the need to meet up in person. It gives you a place to discuss your work with formatting options available to share external sources and ideas easily. Other people not involved with the project may see your work and know a lot on your topic, they can then help you develop your work by posting on your page and suggesting things you should look at. This was made evident to me when someone from another group, who was writing about the same topic as us, posted on our visitor’s section to suggest some ideas we should investigate. This was helpful to us and helped us develop our work and look into things we may never have thought of.

Wikibooks creates a community of academics that are all passionate about learning. By giving academics access to this database of literature created by other academics with similar interests, they are let loose to create, discuss and share ideas. This allows everyone to learn a little something on their interests as no one will know everything and everyone will have some knowledge that they can share to develop others learning. Together, we can increase our knowledge of our interests and continue developing our passions.

Wikibooks is a great platform for collaborative work and allows academics to share and develop ideas. For students it can be used as a source for ideas, rather than a source for knowledge, however this may still be very helpful. It creates a community for academics to share and develop knowledge on their passions. Together, we can help develop our knowledge. Teamwork really does make a dream work.

Thl00021 (discuss • contribs) 01:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments
&#8593; Back to top

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: DISCUSSION, ENGAGEMENT, CONTRIBS

 * Engagement on discussion pages of this standard attain the following grade descriptor for contribs. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this will give you a clearer idea of how the grade you have been given relates to the standards and quality expected of work at this level:
 * Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory contributions may try to relate an idea from the module to an original example, but might not be very convincing. They may waste space on synopsis or description, rather than making a point. They may have spelling or grammatical errors and typos. They might not demonstrate more than a single quick pass at the assignment, informed only by lecture and/or cursory reading. They may suggest reading but not thinking (or indeed the reverse) and will have little justification for ideas offered on Discussion Pages. The wiki markup formatting will need some work.

Students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.


 * This was clearly not the case here – only a few days registered as having logged a contrib. However, when you did engage, these seemed to be genuine contributions in terms of moving the project forward, especially in engaging with others in the group, and essay planning. A couple of the larger contribs on the discussion page are just drafts so I’ve largely ignored these, but there’s evidence here of some meaningful engagement that really enabled the essay to move forward.

Evidence from contribs to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of editorial activity as evidenced through ‘contribs’). These are primarily considered for quality rather than quantity, but as a broad guideline: o	Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial” o	Items on a contribs list that are <1000 characters are important, and are considered in the round when evaluating contribs as a whole because of their aggregate value


 * Several contribs registered as being under 1000 characters, a handful that are “significant” or “substantial” in the sense outlined above.

•	Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages o	Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration o	Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay o	Evidence of peer-review of others’ work


 * This was the strongest element of your contribution. You encouraged others to comment/respond.

•	Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages o	Clear delegation of tasks o	Clearly labelled sections and subsections o	Contributions are all signed


 * There is little evidence of this, aside from some discussion around referencing, which was probably a crucial element in project dev.

•	Civility. Your conduct is a key component of any collaboration, especially in the context of an online knowledge-building community. Please respect others, as well as observe the rules for civility on wiki projects. All contribs are moderated.


 * You conducted yourself well.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
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 the making criteria as outlined in the relevant documentation, it should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band overall.

Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory entries may try to relate an idea from the module to an original example, but might not be very convincing. They may waste space on synopsis or description, rather than making a point. They may have spelling or grammatical errors and typos. They might not demonstrate more than a single quick pass at the assignment, informed only by lecture and/or cursory reading. They may suggest reading but not thinking (or indeed the reverse). The wiki markup formatting will need some work.


 * Although there’s clearly room for improvement here, you do make an effort to engage with the teammates who are engaging with you and at times the discussions you enter into are quite useful. This has had a positive effect on your work more generally. 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.


 * Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. Having said this – this was clearly the strongest part of your engagement, and some of the more interesting uses of wiki markup seen on this year’s book!


 * 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.

General:
 * Reading and research: Some evidence of this here.


 * Argument and analysis: Some evidence of this, particularly in the reflection exercise at the end.


 * Presentation: good use of wiki markup and organisational skills.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 10:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)