User talk:Tinytalia

Hello I am tinytalia. I will be using my discussion page as part of an educational Digital Media and Culture class project at University. --Tinytalia (discuss • contribs) 13:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1:
One of the most obvious differences between Wikipedia and social networking giants Facebook and Twitter is the purpose of their use. Wikipedia functions fundamentally as an encyclopaedia, allowing its users to collaborate with one another to essentially combine their knowledge of numerous different subject matters. Facebook and Twitter, on the other hand, are primarily, as suggested by their title 'social networks', for users to socialise and network virtually with one another. This means that although in both cases their respective users can contribute content, the type of information shared is different in each case.

For Wikipedia, users share their ‘specialist’ knowledge in key areas and the information is factual and mostly always followed up with sources to support the distributions. From my own experiences of Facebook and Twitter I can say that the information contributed by their users is very different from this as it is mostly based on announcements of what is happening in real time for the individual users (e.g. livestream video features allow users to update their friends on their whereabouts).

Whilst both Wikipedia and the two social networking giants allow their users to ‘talk’ to one another, the ways in which this can be achieved also differs. On Facebook and Twitter, direct and private conversations to specific people can happen as well as open conversations which can be viewed by the public (depending on ‘privacy settings’), whereas on Wikipedia so far I am only aware of the ability to ‘comment’ on other people’s ‘talk/discussion pages’ through editing them. The ability to collaborate on Wikipedia with other users through this editing system allows people to contribute their own knowledge openly to a subject matter.

I have also, both in the past and presently, been a part of the Blogger and Wattpad communities and therefore I have experienced posting my own content online which I would consider very different to the content I would post within my Facebook or Twitter accounts. These sites have both given me experience in communicating with fellow users and distributing my own content and my own ‘specialist’ knowledge similar to the way users would on Wikipedia. I could also very well collaborate on these sites with other users if I wished; however, not to the extent that users can on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia allows many different users who have different knowledge to communicate with each other and collaborate on the subject matter pages as and when they wish to, whereas, if I were to collaborate with another user on Blogger or Wattpad I would have to have previously arranged this.

Overall the differences between Wikipedia and the sites I have my own experience of outweigh the similarities, so I am enthusiastic to learn more.

Tinytalia (discuss • contribs) 13:25, 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.


 * 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.


 * This post is at the lower end of this grade band, so there’s clearly room for improvement here - the reason being that you've not yet made much of the platofrm functionality, formatting and mark up. I suspect that this will change dramatically as you get more familiar and proficient with the markup. 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.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are especially good. I like that you have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!) and also that you have engaged in discussion 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). There's already a fair amount of to and fro discussion - this is great, and also fantastic to see that you've engaged with the Reading Room! That will count towards your Engagement points overall. Don't forget to share what you learn so that we can track engagement as it happens. Keep this up!

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #1

 * The accessibility to 'talk' on wikipedia, although as you said is there, is more complex as you have to know what you search for and want to talk about where as facebook and twitter hands in to you on your home page through algorithms and likes. LittleKatie101 (discuss • contribs) 22:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That's very true, in fact it took me a while to figure out how to 'comment' on this post, but I found the "Wikibooks:Reading room/Assistance" - just for future reference in case you need any help with anything or if I forget where to find it again when I do! - very helpful. I learned that you can "ping" people, like I have with you just now, by using  '...' is where you place the user's name, which reminds me of tagging or mentioning people on Facebook and Twitter. But yes, it seems much more complicated here. --Tinytalia (discuss • contribs) 12:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I had never heard of Wattpad before reading your post and I think it's amazing that there are so many websites and apps out there that suit different interests. Like you mentioned, Wikibooks is a good platform for learning new things from different people, and your post has taught me about a dedicated site for sharing stories which is a great idea! Do you think it has something to do with anonymity from friends and family that makes posting your own content on Wattpad and Blogger different? I've found that's the case for me with Reddit, it's sometimes seems easier to share content with people you hardly know. EmilymDaniel (discuss • contribs) 20:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I think we can definitely benefit from using Wikibooks! Also yes, I find it definitely feels easier sharing my own content with people I'm not familiar with rather than friends and family, plus the wider the audience and the more anonymous it is the more honest opinions you'll receive on your own content, because of this it helps me improve my writing. -- Tinytalia (discuss • contribs) 20:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2:
I think I would consider myself to be particularly visible online. As I have mentioned in my previous Wiki Exercise, I have an online presence on numerous social platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Blogger and Wattpad as well as other sites such as Tumblr, Ask.fm and apps such as Instagram and Snapchat. I am active on some of these sites more than I am on others currently and some I don’t use at all now; however, I have not deactivated or deleted my profiles from them so any details I have shared remain there. The information I have used on these sites primarily consist of my name, age, hobbies, location, phone number and the typical “secret answers” to questions I have used to ensure my accounts – if ever hacked or if I ever forget my passwords (which is entirely possible with me) – stay accessible by myself alone.

Depending on who I have as “friends” on each of these accounts shapes the way I post and the information I share. For example, on Facebook I would consider my posts to be more suited to family members and work colleagues as well as friends and so the information I share there include things like my education, where I grew up, my hobbies and things that they may all already currently know about me or things that I would happily share with them personally and offline.

I would like to think the information I share on each of my accounts is under my control, as the different sites I use allow me to change my privacy settings in multiples ways, allowing the audience of my posts to be tailored to my specific preferences, but I know I cannot be entirely certain that this ensures my information is kept secure as some sites have privacy policies and algorithms that allow information to be collected and made visible to third parties. Facebook allows its users to change their privacy settings as they see fit, and in my case my profile is set to “private” so that only people who are friends with me can see my posts. I tested the level of privacy that this has allowed for my profile by logging out of my account and searching my name to see what shows up. I found that the bare minimum of my name, profile picture, where I worked and my current education showed up. I am aware; however, that due to the algorithms Facebook use, the information I input and the posts I create which are hidden from the wider general public who are not “friends” can be used by third parties to filter what I see on my feed and this makes me question the security and privacy that setting my account to “private” really offers.



Likewise, on Snapchat, though I can tailor the conversations and the photos I share with specific friends and though they apparently disappear into thin air after a certain amount of time (providing myself nor the person I am Snapping do not “save” the chat messages or screenshot my photos), they can be collected by Snapchat themselves. According to their Privacy Policy settings, Snapchat collects information that we choose to give them - the usual basic information we give them to set up our accounts - alongside information they access when we use their services and even information from third parties and like everything on the internet, even our Snaps, which we assume to be gone forever 10 seconds after they've been opened, the information we post can be appear to be deleted if we wish it to but it is always traceable. This trace-ability reminds me a lot of the Wikibooks contributions section. Whenever we make edits and contributions in Wikibooks they are recorded and publicly accessible and, even if we make a deletion, it appears in our contributions section. The Wikibooks contributions can be helpful in cases like the Digital Media and Culture project, as assessors can see where students have contributed in assessments and can reward marks accordingly; however, the trace-ability of anything we post online and the uncertainty of how secure our "private" accounts are on other sites can be unsettling to consider. --Tinytalia (discuss • contribs) 21:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #2
Talia, I have found your work to be very well thought out and detailed. You clearly are concerned about your online visibility and are thinking about the data trails that you are leaving. You seem to be a member of many different social media sites. Which one do you think allows you the most privacy? Or the illusion of privacy at least? When thinking about my own online visibility, I am very much more private compared to you. Do you feel safe sharing information online? I know that I do not but that may be the reason that I am not a member of as many social media sites online. You commented that you have not deleted any posts or information from your social media sites. Do you believe that you would be able to delete the information if you wanted to or do you believe that the information that you have posted will always be out there somewhere?

Misslouisepark (discuss • contribs) 10:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, thank you for your comment.
 * Before this particular Wikibook exercise I had never really considered my online visibility or data trails. I have always been aware that I should be careful what I post and who I share information with - I’m sure we’ve all had the same talks with our families and teachers about this sort of thing when we were younger - but I guess up until now I’ve never really sat down and thought about it in great detail and considered why we should be.
 * Aside from the usual dangers of the online world that we’re told about as kids and the advice we’re given to not share personal information with strangers, I never considered that the information I post for friends and family to see on Facebook or even the information I share with sites to set up my accounts could be going to third parties and that I have no control over this. This is, like I said earlier, an unsettling thought.
 * I think your second question sums up the privacy of the online world entirely because I do believe we are given the illusion that what we say or do online, if we wish it to be, is kept private; however, this is not the case as I found from my discoveries of the privacy policies of Snapchat and Facebook yesterday. I cannot blame them for this either, we’re all guilty of clicking “yes” to understanding and accepting terms and conditions we haven't even read and we cannot hold the sites responsible for this, so I think what I need to take from this particular exercise more than anything else is to be more responsible and be aware of what I’m agreeing with online. However, I do think that we should be questioning why these sites need to store or pass on our information to third parties without us explicitly saying that’s okay by us.
 * After this exercise I think I will definitely be more cautious of what information I share and what I am clicking “yes” to in the future, but to answer your final question, I do think it is too late to erase the information I have already posted. The accounts I no longer use were made when I was younger and I wasn’t sharing anything that I would consider would put me in any danger online, it was more just the usual cringe-worthy, horrendously spelt posts and embarrassing photos (so more fool the sites that may or may not have shared those with third parties) but I do believe even if I were to delete those now that they’re already out there in the world and they’re probably there to stay. --Tinytalia (discuss • contribs) 19:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Talia, I completely agree with you! I believe that we have all been educated on online safety but have never taken it seriously until we were old enough to understand the Internet. I am also guilty of agreeing to the Terms and Conditions of websites and apps that I use without reading them. One of the social media sites that I find to be worrying is Instagram as I remember when they updated their Terms of Use last year, possibly the year before, all active users were forced to agree to Instagram being in control of their content after it has been posted. This happened after the takeover by Facebook. The ownership question should not exist as whomever took the photo or posted the photo is the owner, not the site. Facebook now displays TV ads featuring users of their Facebook live feature. Each clip shown in the ad is believed by Facebook to be theirs but it is the posters property. What if they did not want their images to be broadcast on national TV, bringing the issue of visibility back. I agree with you about being more cautious online with the sharing of information. I am like you now and do not post as much, especially personal or potentially dangerous material.

Misslouisepark (discuss • contribs) 17:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey, sorry for my late reply! I am totally terrible at accepting terms and conditions without reading them! I've attempted to be good about it and have a quick scroll through the list and see what I'm agreeing to, but I've only ever managed to have the patience for that once or twice and honestly I still didn't understand what I was saying yes to. The list of terms and conditions is always so endless for everything and they don't exactly use the simplest of terms for us normal folk to understand so I just click yes anyways and hope for the best. I've probably signed my soul away a good ten times or more, haha!
 * I feel like there's always going to be similar sorts of arguments as to who owns the content that we post, some people believe that if we're getting access to the sites for free that we become the product and we therefore don't own what we post, but then other people disagree with this entirely like yourself. I'm wondering if there'll ever be a clear resolve of this. Tinytalia (discuss • contribs) 16:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #2
I find your post very intriguing, especially when you talk about privacy settings and saving images on snapchat. I talked about privacy on my post as well, and it has given me a greater insight into this. I find it really overwhelming how much information is really out there, and how sheltered we are from it. We really aren't sharing our content with the people on our profiles, it goes out to many more people as information is always passed on, be it by word mouth or internet. Our data trails continue even when we aren't online. I agree with when she questions you about posts and pictures actually being deleted from sites when you take them away. I talked about this in my wiki exercise #1. I think that content never goes away as it could of easily been passed on or seen before it is deleted from your account. I have deleted many things on my social media, for various reasons; embarrassment, didn't like the way I looked, or more seriously I was applying to university and looking at getting a job. Would you ever consider changing things on your social media when you were applying for a new job, or a post-graduate position at another university. I know we are brought up to be an individual and we should never change ourselves to impress other people, but maybe in these situations we have to? I then start to question, if I feel the need to delete, change and make my accounts private, should the content on these accounts really be on there in the first place? What do you think.

On another note, I really like the way you have set out your blog. I have learnt how to { { ping } } people, create links within my wiki page, but I was wondering if you could show me how you embed pictures into your wiki?

Thanks susannamahawes Susannamhawes (discuss • contribs) 13:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, your point about us sharing our information and content with more than just people on our profiles is very accurate. I have actually been thinking a lot about the way different apps interact with each other. For example, when we want to link up our accounts from one app to another, they immediately want to access and share data with each other. Since we’re told not to worry that the apps won’t post on our behalf on our accounts we naturally accept this, we don’t seem concerned so long as they promise not to post without our knowledge and consent, but my question is why are we not concerned about them accessing all our information?
 * Apps even want to access information on our devices and nine times out of ten we let them. Snapchat alone wishes to access our device location to provide us with the location filters and they also with to access our camera (I mean this is obvious) and our picture albums too. They want to access our phonebooks and in their privacy policy page they state that they collect information about us from third parties. What they mean by this is if another user has allowed them to collect information from their device phonebook and we’re listed in their contacts then they may collect and combine that information with the information they have already collected from us. We truly are in no control of our own information.
 * As I said to just now, my accounts may have contained photos or posts that I consider embarrassing or inappropriate for potential employers to see, and like you said I have in the past deleted a few of these. I agree with your questioning, though – if we feel we have to delete these now then perhaps we shouldn’t have posted them at all.
 * Thank you for your comment. Also, I would really like to help out with embedding pictures, but I’m honestly not sure how I managed it. I found on a few wiki helps that said we’re supposed to put [ [ File: filename .jpg ] ] (no spacing between brackets) but I was only accidentally successful with the Facebook logo I have used (I had tried to embed more images using the same markup but it wouldn’t work, so I’m not sure how it works yet). I’m going to play around with it to see if I can figure it out or find someone who could give me some pointers, so when I do I’ll ping you to let you know! --Tinytalia (discuss • contribs) 19:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3:
In today's society, we are surrounded constantly by the magic little invention of wifi that allows us to always stay connected and due to this I am, as danah boyd would say, "part of a cohort who is always-on". The internet is accessible practically everywhere and anywhere and I'm a person that takes full advantage of this. I spend a lot of my time online -it's really hard not to - even if I'm not on social networking sites and procrastinating on Netflix, then I'm online for uni work. With this Wikibooks project in particular I've found that the latter is more so the case over the past few weeks, as for our group project we have to keep on engaging and communicating to get the best outcome for our book. As the name suggests, the world wide web is vast and there are endless pages of information to be accessed but we don't let ourselves be overwhelmed by this at all, in fact, using key words in our searches narrows done the results to those more relevant to the information we seek. Even on Wikibooks, using key words can help navigate us to the pages we seek and when we don't know what we're looking for exactly, the internet helps us out by offering suggestions from previous or similar searches - what a clever little thing! It's ever so easy to get distracted though, one minute you could be searching for resources to help you cover an assignment and the next you could be looking up why ducks quack (they also sometimes squeak, chirp, grunt and whistle too... don't ask, I told you, it's easy to get lost in the depths of the internet). I don't always think that getting distracted and led down paths of different information is completely bad though (in some cases you could maybe do without stumbling down a route that leads you far from your original goal, I mean, ducks... Wikibooks... I don't see much correlation but hey, I managed to incorporate my random findings into my work as an example, so today it's a positive tangent!), whenever I'm doing an assignment and I already have a list of reading to do I can then search for more resources that are similar by using some of the key words. It's very useful for when I need to use multiple references and show I've read around the subject a lot more than just through the lists provided by my tutors, which is beneficial in the long run. I learn more about the topic I'm studying and I get a couple of extra marks for extensive reading - a win win situation. This type of abundance of information thrown at me through searches with key words has helped greatly in my progress through the Wikibook project so far, as I have found sites and sources that I didn't consider previously and that will flesh out my content in the project, making it more informative and supported with references. I think in cases like this, for studying purposes the extra results that come up through our searches can therefore be very useful.

Tinytalia (discuss • contribs) 20:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #3
Hi, I found your comments on information overload to be very interesting and you also touched upon a few of the same areas that I did. For example, when I'm doing research for essays or other uni work, I like to use key words to search for references as well. I feel that broader, more general searches tend to produce a lot more useless information overload, and my search results will produce journals or books that are loosely linked to what I would like to research. However, by using key words, the results tend to produce links to articles etc. that are more closely linked to the subject I am focusing on.

Also, I have the same problem of getting distracted by some of the most random things on the Internet. On second I could be watching a YouTube tutorial about how to create a Wikibook but, within a few clicks, I'm suddenly learning how to make lasagna. It can be so easy to do on the Internet!

One thing that I feel that really contributes to the 'always-on' culture these days is smartphones. Everybody is constantly connected to the Internet almost everywhere they go. I personally feel that a lot of the information overload I receive comes from notifications from apps on my phone. I find it very difficult to stay focused if I feel my phone vibrating. I might be able to resist for a few minutes but eventually I will give in and check to see if it's a Facebook/WhatsApp message or a notification from Twitter or BBC News. As soon as my phone goes off, I am instantly distracted. They only way I can avoid this is by switching my phone off or to silent. Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 12:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi I definitely agree that broader, more general searches produce results of information that is less useful to us; I like that the internet can pick up on the key words we use and find articles, journals and academic resources that provide similar, useful information. If we think back to how much harder it would have been to find as much information relating to what we want to learn about before technology came about, we're lucky. We don't even have to flick through pages and pages of information because when we search for things online the words we used are highlighted specifically for our attention.


 * I think getting distracted happens to the best of us, even the most studious person could probably find themselves lost in an internet search of something that has absolutely nothing to do with their assignment. I think it just goes to show how vast the internet is, though and how easy it is to stray from the topic at hand!


 * Definitely! People are more engrossed in their phones than in the world around them and the here and now of it all. I've made a comment on another wikibook explaining that I've noticed how I can miss entire conversations going on around me just because I checked a notification on my phone and got lost in tagging friends in memes or talking to them through messenger. Your point there about being able to resist checking a notification only for a few minutes just shows how as a society we're easily lured into the online world and I am definitely just like you! I could be, as and I like to say, completely horizontal but as soon as I hear my phone buzz it's only a matter of moments before I'm vertical and checking who has sent me a message. The art of actual conversation seems to be dying, too. I don't know about you, but I've noticed that sometimes I could have the longest conversation with somebody on messenger but when it comes to speaking to them in real life with actual words the conversation doesn't flow as naturally. -Tinytalia (discuss • contribs) 16:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4 (Wikibooks Reflection):
I am one of the many people who uses Wikipedia to gather basic information both for academic purposes when I’m looking to find links to sources for further reading, as well as just to expand my own knowledge of a particular topic; however, prior to the Wikibooks project, I wasn’t aware that there were separate Wikimedia platforms such as Wikibooks where people can similarly collaborate their knowledge to create very specific books. In comparison to most of the sites I usually visit (mentioned across my previous wiki exercises), Wikibooks appears far more complex to comprehend and navigate round, though I found as time progressed I familiarised myself with the basic of the markup successfully. Throughout this project there were numerous challenges to overcome, but there were also many benefits to using Wikibooks as part of our assessment.

In the below table I have highlighted what I believe to be the be pros and cons of using Wikibooks as the collaborative space for our assessment.

The fact that Wikibooks is easily accessible by anyone is particularly useful, as many people can access it both to enhance their own knowledge and to also share their intelligence to enhance others’. Wikibooks can be edited by anyone with an account, which means that multiple users can collaborate on a single book to bring together their individual specialist knowledge.

The way Wikibooks works reflects the concept of The Hive Mind and Collective Intelligence. In the case of the Wikibook project, multiple students came together to collaborate and produce a book relating to different themes from the Digital Media lectures. Each theme was reflected within a separate chapter and the cohort was split into groups (which were split into smaller groups again) to work together, filling the book with their own intelligence of these themes gathered from their studies.

I worked on the Privacy in a Digital Age chapter of the book alongside 16 other students. We were the largest group within the project and we had a lot of different aspects of privacy to cover, so in our smaller groups we selected main topics and split those further so that we could each focus on sub-topics. We all brought our own knowledge of the specific topics that we had decided on to the chapter. As Pierre Lévy has suggested of The Hive Mind and Collective Intelligence concepts: “no one knows everything, everyone knows something.” In this case, we were all familiar with at least one topic and through the project we helped bring together the multiple topics, essentially informing each other about them. The Wikibooks project allowed us as individuals to work alongside each other as a Hive Mind, sharing our knowledge with one another and with a wider audience who can access our Wikibook whenever they wish to.

Though the Wikibooks project was challenging, as it is very different from regular assessment methods such as essays and group presentations, I think one of the most helpful features on the platform is the contributions section. When a user contributes to a page or makes an edit in any way, their work is logged in a user contribs section which is accessible by all. This is particularly useful in an assessment like this as, even though we all worked in large groups, the efforts of individuals can be seen clearly still.

I think one of the most tedious issues with Wikibooks is the edit conflicts. At first I found I didn’t seem to struggle with these as not everyone was posting content or editing the discussion page all at once, however, as the project got underway and more people became active in editing and posting in the chapter and discussion pages I ended up having to deal with a few. The edit conflicts may limit the fluidity of The Hive Mind, as the frustration of constantly hitting the edit conflict wall would cause people to perhaps give up on what it was they were going to share – especially if they had lost all the work they were about to post. I found that a way around this, as discussed in my group, was to copy and paste into a word document all our edits (once they were in the final wiki markup form that we wanted) so that if we ran up against another edit conflict we could simply leave the page and try again later.

I also found that discussion pages were either empty and abandoned or a barrage of different discussions that were hard to keep up with. At first it seemed like I was talking into an empty void and it was hard to grasp anybody’s attention as with Wikibooks the only real way you can directly notify somebody that you’re speaking to them is to  them (which at first felt fun because it was practically like tagging them on Twitter or Facebook, however, it became bothersome when I had to retype it time and time again) but this would not send any push notifications to the individual. As Robert Burnett and David Marshall acknowledge, “the number of people with internet access has increased exponentially” which has created an “always-on” culture (as suggested by danah boyd) in our society. People today rely constantly on their phones, laptops or tablets buzzing at them to notify them when others are trying to communicate with them. Since Wikibooks does not allow this convenience, people would not always see when they were being pinged until they logged in to their account. This caused some delays in the discussion process which began to cause slight confusion amongst the group. In the end, we managed to overcome this, ensuring we kept the discussion page as organised as possible, with separate sections for the different groups and making sure headings and sub-headings were as clear as possible.

We also discussed topics outside of the Wikibooks platform, using Facebook Messenger for its quickness and Google Docs for its ease of sharing our work with one another so that we could proof read it before it was posted. Despite the encouragement to use Wikibooks alone to carry out this project (or at least re-discuss conversations that occurred on Facebook on the discussion pages) the fact that many students I collaborated with admitted to using other methods of communicating shows how Wikibooks may not be ideal for carrying out discussions.

Overall Wikibooks provided an interesting and new way to tackle the assessment, however, it had its drawbacks as we worked in particularly large groups with a limited amount of time to produce work. Tinytalia (discuss • contribs) 00:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #4
Hi I also didn't realise that there was other Wiki platforms and how much work people had put into it - it was quite impressive actually. I feel similarly about your experience with the project - the edit conflicts were so annoying! I also felt that typing out the code for the ping was tedious - I guess because Wikis aren't set up for as instantaneous and continuous interaction as on social media which is set up to be as convenient as possible - i.e. just adding an '@'. My group also did most of our discussions on Facebook messenger or face-to-face, even though we knew we were supposed to carry out our discussions on Wikibooks because it was just so time consuming on Wikibooks. I also agree that while it was an interesting way to do an assignment it wasn't the most convenient of mediums to use! - Katienotcatriona (discuss • contribs) 19:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I definitely just thought Wikipedia was a stand alone thing, so this module really opened my eyes to how there are other Wiki platforms available and how useful they are too. I think people really have dedication and put in a lot of effort both here and on Wikipedia when creating books or articles and editing them so they're correct and provide users with accurate information, I think after this project I'll appreciate the hardworking Wikimedians a lot more!
 * I wish we had been given a little bit more of a heads-up of Wiki etiquette and how to handle the markups better. As someone who wasn't all that familiar with coding and such (I only grasped the basics my older brother and uncle had shown me a couple of times when they messed on with websites and such when I was younger, or when I used tumblr I sometimes edited the themes and changed the coding with those) I could have benefited from being shown in more detail how to approach the markup. There were a lot of complicated descriptions and whilst the Tearoom and Reading Room helped somewhat, I still sometimes found I struggled to understand a few things.
 * But yes! Definitely interesting, but not entirely convenient. Tinytalia (discuss • contribs) 17:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with your cons about no push notification. I think that is something that we have become use to through the means of Facebook and Twitter. Even general SMS alarms the owner. It can make engaging disconnected and frustrating Littlekatie1 (discuss • contribs) 21:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Definitely, I've found if I don't get notifications for things then I forget about them. There's been a few times I've shut off notification alerts for Facebook and such when I've been trying to do work and later I've forgot to check for any new messages and things because I've not had the constant dinging of my phone to alert me to them. It was a lot like this with Wikibooks, I found myself having to consciously think about checking to see if anyone had responded to any of my wiki exercises or anything I posted on discussion pages because I didn't have any way of knowing through push-notifications. Tinytalia (discuss • contribs) 15:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikibooks Help
Here are just a few things that I've discovered we can do on our Wikibooks. I found these out through a number of ways.

Creating Headers/Bolding Text/Italics
I discovered a help page on Wikipedia by searching 'Help:Wiki Markup' This page shows the basic markup for creating different headings along with numerous other helpful markups. By adding = to either side of your text creates the main heading you usually see when you begin a new topic. By adding another = to either side, it changes the heading style and you can add up to six on either side to make the headings smaller and also in bold.
 * Headings:

To italicise text you need to put consecutive apostrophes on either side of the text you want italicised. To bold text you need to put three consecutive apostrophes either side of the text you want bold. If you want to make your text bold and italicised you must put five consecutive apostrophes on either side.
 * Italics and bold text:

Horizontal Rule
I have also used the horizontal rule markup in my previous wiki exercise which is shown on the markup page too. To use the horizontal rule you need to type 4 consecutive dashes.

Pinging Users
I found out how to ping people through the help of somebody on the Reading Room. By using { {ping|username} } (without spacing the brackets out) it essentially tags the user and they receive a notification of your response to them. This will be useful to use in our Wikibooks project when there's more than one group working on one topic and we need to communicate to each other without being confused about who is talking to who.

Indenting Comments
Indenting comments makes them easier to follow and I learned how to do this, again, using the Reading Room. By adding a colon at the beginning of your text, your comment becomes indented. You can add more than one colon, this helps when more than one reply is being given.

'Bullet-pointing' text
I have found that if you put an asterisk before your text it can bullet-point it.

Embedding Images
I learned (sort of) how to embed images through the Reading Room once again and also through the Wikipedia Picture Tutorial page and through a YouYube video tutorial. To embed images into your Wikibook use File:Filename.jpg with two [] surrounding it. Through the YouTube tutorial I found that you can search for images to use through Wikimedia Commons.

Back to top
I found out that we can add 'back to top' links by using the markup [ [ #top | &#8593 ; Back to top ] ] (without spaces), this will be useful in our discussion pages as they'll get particularly long with several groups planning different topics as well as our chapters in the wikibook itself.

Copy and paste the markup here: &#8593; Back to top

Boxes
We can add these boxes around our text by leaving a space at the start of a sentence. I have used this on the discussion page for our chapter of the wikibook to serve as an announcement box.

Feel free to test out any of the above mentioned markups by editing this Wikibook post and trying it out below the 'Comments for Wikibooks Help'. (And if I've explained anything incorrectly please let me know or if something doesn't make sense I'll try my best to reword it for you.)

Comments for Wikibooks Help:
Littlekatie1 (discuss • contribs) 11:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is great . I had no idea how to do any of this and it's really helpful to have a -go-to-place to find this information.

This is really useful and very organised, thanks! --EmilymDaniel (discuss • contribs) 14:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I have discovered that you cannot link Wikipedia articles too many times on wiki books as an URL. Instead it is preferred to use [ [  w:ArticleName | ArticleName ] ] Without spaces. Hope this is useful for people. Littlekatie1 (discuss • contribs) 01:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)
The introduction section here is a little brief, however it draws its strength from being well written, in an accessible language. In addition to this, very usefully, each section has been laid out in bullet point format, with a very brief summative sentence for each section. The sections themselves represent wide coverage of many of the main issues surrounding privacy in contemporary popular culture.

However, of particular use here – and very much a strength of the chapter as a whole, is the section that draws together the issues raised here, and applies these to other areas of the wikibook as a whole, explicitly making more of the platform than would otherwise have been, had the groups decided to write this chapter in isolation. To be clear, the execution of this section could have been better – greatly improved through more systematic use of interwiki links to draw attention to the specific pages, sections and issues from the various pages in the wikibook which you were commenting on. Another specific section here that could have been improved is the section on celebrity vlogging. Whereas it is true that there hasn’t been a lot written on this (yet – there is a growing interest in the scholarship, and we can expect much more appearing in the short term), it should have been acknowledged that the scholarship on celebrity culture as a whole is very well established, and that most of the issues raised in relation to YouTubers (e.g. “the price of fame”, privacy issues, and the implied “fair game” logic) are covered in existing debates on celebrity. All that said, the potential for this last section was recognised and other parts of it fully engaged with existing research in the field, and therefore is rewarded.

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

The unusual step of including a survey and posting the results here is an extremely useful one. Something that absolutely HAS to be thought through in ALL future work is that if one is conducting a survey (even if for demonstration purposes, as included here) or indeed ANY work with people, one must go through an ethics approval process – this is to ensure no harms (relative or absolute) occur for researchers or participants. This process will become more apparent later in the degree programme, particularly in final year projects. The glossary is really useful – not quite exhaustive, but good for quick reference purposes. Use of interwiki links in here would have been useful. The references section again evidences research, reading and sharing of resources. Some of the formatting seems to go awry towards the end, so a little more joined-up thinking there would have been useful, but overall good.


 * Excellent. 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.

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


 * Outstanding. 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. In addition to the criteria for 70%+, entries at this standard demonstrate outstanding critical understanding of the exercise and are able to produce sophisticated lines of argument, and is highly original.


 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, featuring outstanding and highly original command of a considerable range of relevant materials and analyses
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material to a considerable degree
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument featuring discriminating command of a considerable range of relevant materials and analyses to an outstanding degree
 * evidence of critical independent and highly original thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position);
 * exceptional 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 of an exemplary quality (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Excellent levels of 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 considered  judgement relating to key issues, concepts and procedures

2nd Marker Comments

Content

This entry starts with a rather short introduction, but is structured very well throughout. The idea of including a survey is very useful and backs up the points being made. Although some sections could have been improved (as stated in the marker’s comments), it is a good read. I agree with the proposed mark.

Understanding

There is outstanding evidence of critical engagement with material, independent reading and original thinking.

Engagement

I agree with the comments made by the first marker: There is excellent evidence of engagement with others and a good amount of creative use of the discussion pages.