User talk:Tonyvall

Hi, my name is Tony. I am using Wikibooks for my class project.Tonyvall (discuss • contribs) 18:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Tonyvall (discuss • contribs) 18:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: What Makes a Good Wiki?
Connecting with others is one of the fundamental principles of social media and some of today's most prominent social networking sites have made it more accessible than ever to engage and share ideas with people from all over the world. We often face limitations in our day to day lives that restrict our ability to connect with other people; social media platforms, in my experience, lift these restrictions and allow us to directly reach out to others who share similar interests, ideas, or concerns. This is particularly true for marginalised identities.

As a member of the LGBT community, social media has broken down these limitations and given me the opportunity to connect with other people who share similar life experiences. Most importantly, it has allowed me to engage in a dialogue on how I can use social media to raise LGBT awareness.

Wiki has proven to be a useful tool for studying LGBT history. It offers a detailed look into both the past and present, but it has its disadvantages. The information can often be inaccurate and this is rarely given much thought or attention. False information is cited as a source and shared on various social media websites without anyone considering the authenticity of the source.

Generally, Wiki is a useful resource for information. A platform like Twitter, however, allows for a much stronger sense of communication and exchange of information. Voices are unfiltered and therefore engagement feels more genuine. Tonyvall (discuss • contribs) 11:59, 8 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 mention that in wikis,The information can often be inaccurate and this is rarely given much thought or attention. This is true - so, what are you going to do about it? This isn't some sort of challenge necessarily, but your question gives us opportunity to think about the civic capacities of platforms such as wikis. Contribution, in this sense, is very much in the vein of participating within a community and improving the quality of information.


 * 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. In one of your comments you make an interesting assertion: It’s also quite worrying to know that others are able to edit my words. In that sense, while websites like Twitter and Facebook are more informal, there is an aspect of reassurance that we have complete control of our own voice. There are two things that are noteworthy here, and certainly the basis for further exploration in your project work. First, what does this tell us about authorship and ownership? Second, do we really have complete control on social media platforms? Are there distinct differences between platforms when it comes to control?

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 09:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #1
Comment from Katienotcatriona: Hi Tonyvall, I enjoyed reading your post, I can relate to your experience as I too am part of the LGBT community. In my experience, I've found the community aspect of social media very rewarding but I agree that Wiki as a resource for information is helpful too, even if the information is not always totally accurate, it is a good starting point. I like what you said about voices being unfiltered and feeling genuine on social media, as even though Wikipeida is helpful, I too feel that sharing information more informally on social media does feel more rewarding. I usually use Tumblr for communicating with others in the LGBT community and I found LGBT advice blogs to be very helpful. Even though these are usually ran by either individuals or a small group of people, (compared to Wikipedia which has a greater number of contributors) even if they don't know the answers to questions, they can still be helpful as provide a more personal interaction with other users and will often encourage their followers to engage and add their own opinions/advice. Katienotcatriona (discuss • contribs) 18:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Katie, thank you for commenting! The LGBT community’s presence online really has been so rewarding. Being LGBT can feel very isolating and not everyone has the proper resources available that will offer face-to-face guidance or shelter. Indeed, advice blogs are a great tool for communication. It’s been incredible witnessing the ways contributors work to assist those in need of immediate help. Like you mentioned, users often encourage their followers to help in any way that they can and that goes a long way. These platforms have become a lifeline for many people. It really demonstrates just how much of an impact social media has had on our community.


 * Researching LGBT history via Wikipedia has been helpful but it’s far more rewarding to learn that prominent figures in the community are active users on Twitter where you have a direct line of communication with them. All websites are grounded in collaboration but it does feel like the “anyone can edit” aspect of Wikipedia hinders it quite a bit. The information isn’t always accurate and even when it is, it often lacks a sense of nuance.Tonyvall (discuss • contribs) 09:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Data Trails
Visibility online is more prevalent than ever in this current social media climate, so much so that most of us seem to live as much of our lives online as we do off. This past year, I have become more conscious and wary of how visible I am on social media, due in large part to the realisation that a lot of my personal information was readily accessible to anyone who wished to do a simple Google search of my name. My Facebook, Twitter and Instagram profiles were linked together and it surprised me just how easily traceable I was, and how uncomfortable this made me feel. A quick search yielded a collage of social media moments and it felt like a violation of privacy.

I found aspects of Facebook visibility to be quite challenging, specifically my attempts to connect with both friends and family on the same platform. I therefore chose to delete my account some months ago. I can relate much of my current social media experience to Erving Goffman’s concept of Impression Management, how different versions of myself are exclusive to specific platforms. The active “I” agent backstage definitely rings true, especially on accounts that include my real name and personal photos. I have been guilty of considering the inferences that could be made about me before clicking submit on a text post or uploading a photo. It’s easy to develop a habit of self monitoring your online presence. This ties into Mendelson and Papacharissi’s assertion that we consciously and unconsciously work to control or guide how we are perceived by others. We strive to create and maintain a very specific image of ourselves and it consumes a lot of our time.

Upon deleting Facebook, I received a notification that deletion would not be immediate, rather it would take 14 days. I wanted the account deleted immediately, but, of course, I was operating under Facebook’s policy. It challenges an earlier point I made about users having total control of their voice on these platforms in comparison to Wikis. We are the authors of our content, yes. We contribute and participate in the exchange of information but the platform on which we choose to do so ultimately has ownership of that content. Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram — all of these platforms govern our data in different ways. I seldom think critically about this before I sign up to use social media websites. I briefly skim the Terms of Service (or worse, refuse to read it) without giving much thought to what I am actually consenting to. What the cost of my visibility is.

We share our content but we have no real control over how this content is managed in a wider sense. We have little to no control over what information a quick Google search will offer on us, or how personal this information will be. A search produces random fragments of our digital footprint and we lose the ability to guide the narrative of our online self. Various social media websites do offer an option that restricts search engines from indexing your accounts but I have found this to be unreliable. Even with privacy settings in place, a trail of activity can still manage to crop up.

Wikibooks is interesting in terms of visibility. In a lot of ways it differs considerably to other platforms. Yet, there are similarities. The Wiki tasks themselves, for instance, require us to be reflective of our lives. We are asked to present accounts of our experiences. I have read paragraphs of information from classmates who I have yet to speak to in person, illustrating one of the many contrasts of the online/real life divide. The mere act of selecting a user to engage in comment discussion is an odd experience. Jill Rettberg highlights in Written, Visual and Quantitative Self Representations that to lurk is to not be an active participant in the online exchange. While we are visibly participating in discussion, there is an underlying “lurker” element to how we ultimately choose the comments we respond to. Tonyvall (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)Tonyvall (discuss • contribs) 11:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Tonyvall (discuss • contribs) 21:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #2

 * Hey Tony. I fully agree that our generation seems ever more reliant on the internet. I know myself that I spend vast amounts of time on the internet, always scrolling through one platform or another. I myself hadn't thought much about how easily accessible my information was until this assignment. I have my instagram on private but that's it really. My information is out there for everyone to see. I found it interesting what you were saying about facebook, I too find it hard trying to appeal to family and friends on it, especially with the stuff people tag you in. I was wondering if deleting it is a permanent thing for you? I have a friend who did a similar thing, She said the account looks like its gone when you delete it but you can always reactivate it, which seems like that information is never really gone from facebook but rather pushed to the side till someone logs in again? BethIrish (discuss • contribs) 21:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Beth. Thank you for your comment. You raise an interesting point about Facebook, and it’s something I probably should have touched on in my original post. I permanently deleted my Facebook account which means that I no longer have a functioning account. I think maybe your friend has deactivated her account. Deactivation renders the account dormant essentially but users are able to reactivate at any point. What’s interesting is that “traces” of some of my Facebook activity is still visible. For example, messages that I have forwarded to someone else’s account. “Permanently deleted” starts to lose its meaning when you consider the data trail that is left behind. Currently, I don’t think I would create another Facebook account. What’s maybe interesting to note is other people’s response to “I don’t have a Facebook”. Everyone and their cat (sometimes quite literally) has an account and not having one is a pretty bizarre concept to a lot of people. It really demonstrates just how much Facebook has grown to be a vital extension of the self.Tonyvall (discuss • contribs) 10:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)Tonyvall (discuss • contribs) 10:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload
In her discussion of ’Always On Culture’, Danah Boydhow writes about her struggle to find balance in the constant flow of information and how she’s either taking digital sabbaticals or obsessively checking social media feeds in the middle of the night. I often find myself in a space of these two extremes, too. Attempting to completely disengage from social media one minute and the next striving to keep track of every last bit of activity on my newsfeed. Information is so continuous that I routinely check my phone to make sure that I’m not missing out on anything important. What it is that I’m potentially missing out on, I’m not sure, but it’s a feeling that drives me to check my timeline way too much. It doesn’t help that so many of the websites I visit are adjusted to fit my interests. Whether it’s "recommended for you" on YouTube, a think piece that leads to countless others, or suggested posts on Twitter, a 10 minute browse quickly extends to over an hour.

I ultimately try to find a balance by cutting out unnecessary information, but this can grow into a problem. My view of what is “unnecessary” and “necessary” can become skewed. We sometimes don’t take advantage of the information that is available to us and can find ourselves trapped in our own filter bubbles. I usually stay within the confines of my timeline and this can have a negative effect on the way I consume information and how it shapes my opinions. It restricts me from new ideas and different perspectives. There have been occasions where my stance on a situation or topic has been based on the information shared on my timeline and it’s not until I engage with a variety of sources that I realise the information wasn’t entirely accurate or presented fairly. While algorithms do play a significant role in how we experience information, we also, to an extent, create and perpetuate our own echo chambers. In that sense, the abundance of information is an advantage. It allows me to gain a fully realised understanding of a particular interest, story or event.

In terms of doing research for the wikibook project (and academia in general), the magnitude of information out there is both exciting and overwhelming. When I’m in the process of researching a topic, there is an underlying anxiety that I cannot properly encapsulate a theory or concept because the information is infinite. It can feel impossible to accurately process, condense, and report all the information without reducing its quality in some way. An abundance of information is a huge advantage for any research project, of course, but there is a desire to include as much detail as possible and it can start to hinder the work. Assigning specific topics/sections has allowed me to focus on what is essential to the project without getting too distracted by irrelevant information.Tonyvall (discuss • contribs) 11:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Tonyvall (discuss • contribs) 14:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #3

 * Hi Tonyvall! I really enjoyed reading your post, I'm interested in the point you made about your opinions being shaped by your news feed! It has been suggested that we often only follow people whose opinions are in line with our own and therefore tailor our news feed to reaffirm our own opinions, would you agree with that? This was certainly something I experienced during the independence referendum, all of my friends and family were pro independence and so my newsfeed was full of yes campaign material, making me believe the majority of people were voting yes. I was ultimately shocked and confused at the result because I had been blind to the support for the no campaign. Caroline WikiHacker (discuss • contribs) 11:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Thanks for commenting! I definitely agree with those claims. I think it’s only natural to want to surround yourself with people who share the same opinions as you but it can start to affect your willingness to be objective. I had a similar experience during the referendum. I wasn’t engaging with contrasting reports so it became a sort of “out of sight, out of mind” scenario. It made me realise that I hadn’t bothered to consider any viewpoints that weren’t telling me what I wanted to hear, basically. It's not always fun but I've learned that it's good to regularly step outside of your bubble. Tonyvall (discuss • contribs) 13:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
A week has now passed since the deadline of the wikibook project and upon reading Christian Fusch’s chapter Wikipedia: A New Democratic Form of Collaborative Work and Production, I’m eager to evaluate my own participation in the wikiverse, attempting to reach a fair conclusion on whether my approach to the project and the collaboration process itself was successful. Generally, I think it was.

Fusch states that Wikipedians have developed an “ad hoc decision making process based on debate and consensus, which enables them to collaboratively edit.” While most of us are far from experienced Wikipedians, I think we all adapted to this system rather well. As a group, we assigned our preferred topics on the discussion page and this allowed for a focused understanding of what was expected of us in terms of content. There was consistent engagement amongst group members, from questions, concerns, to general thoughts on how the chapter was coming along, and this brought a sense of ease to the project. It became a useful space where we could all maintain communication. The user-pinging feature was a great addition also because I would be notified if one of my group members had a question about the project. I feel everyone’s contribution to the chapter was equally divided and all entries proved essential in gaining a good understanding of digital labour on social media platforms. The level of detail in my group members’ entries (as well as the additional chapters of the wikibook) pushed me to be a better contributor. Just observing their consistent activity on the page really inspired me to work even harder on providing thorough research that would complement their work.

Viewing the chapter now that it is complete, I’m reminded of Danah Boyd’s assertion that technology creates new possibilities for how we exchange and consume information. A lot of the material referenced throughout the project was retrieved directly through the university database. It’s a plethora of information that is not accessible to everyone – highlighting Boyd’s further point that simply just being connected to a network of information is a privilege not all are afforded. My time spent on the wikibook has given me a stronger appreciation for how information and ideas are shared online; how everyone’s work on the chapter accumulated into an extensive body of research that, as Fusch puts it, contributes to a user-based platform that, at its core, is constructed for educational purposes. There has been a transfer of information that can now be freely consumed by users who are interested in these topics but would have perhaps faced restrictions in gaining access to some of the academic resources used for our write-up.

Focusing solely on my own contributions, I can identify a few missteps. For example, I approached the task much like I would an essay assignment and this project required something entirely different. Reviewing my entries, I think this is especially evident in the style of writing that I used. For future collaborations, I would place more emphasis on how best to describe key ideas under the wiki environment and try to refine my write-ups to be a bit more concise. I also think it would have been more appropriate if I had referred to the surrounding topics that my group members were discussing (particularly within the Introduction as this is the reader’s first impression of the topic). This would have tightly linked all the pieces together and the flow of information would be more cohesive.

In retrospect, I also think the chapter would have been more polished had we all branched out to other sections. What I mean by this is, there could be some valuable insight missing from, say, my evaluation of alienation that one of my group members has in their unique understanding of the concept. Similarly, I could have used the knowledge I have gained from the readings and contributed to other sections of the chapter. This would have developed a stronger rhythm of collaboration where multiple people build up one section. Tonyvall (discuss • contribs) 17:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Tonyvall (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)
The introduction section is very well-written, summarising many key points in relation to the subject matter. The presentation of a concept (i.e. in this case Fuchs and Sevignani) framing key ideas for discussion, and providing a foundational basis to proceed with an argument, is a really neat idea. It sets up what is essentially, the most theory-oriented discussion in the book, and this isn’t a negative by any means. In fact, it provides a crucial element of balance through which to address the more applied approaches that are perhaps more in evidence in other chapters.

A concerted effort is made throughout to communicate sophisticated ideas in concise ways. The overall structure is well thought out, and evidences deliberation, delegation and timely organisation. Coverage of many of the salient issues encountered in the module are touched upon, either explicitly or in passing, and this is a useful strategy for grounding some of the more abstract ideas.

Lots of live links are made – this chapter makes the most out of the platforms functionality, which in turn is read quite easily as a reflection made on the kind of platform used and the audiences for which you might be writing this chapter. This approach works very well overall. However, I think that more could be made of making interwiki links to various relevant sections in other chapters (especially, perhaps, chapters on Hive mind, or privacy in the Digital Age.)

The sections on Information Society and Network Society are particularly well put together. Although these are perhaps the least theoretically heavy, the way that you discuss and structure the concepts gives these sections a real sense of narrative. Some really good uses of examples and case here to illustrate points made. I would have liked to have seen some use of images or wiki formatting to break up the text a little bit more here, however. The same goes for the section on critical theory – however, this section is much less successful, as it seems rather abstract, and detached from the subject matter. It is factually correct, fairly well written and historically accurate, but perhaps the least satisfying section in the chapter because of this. The sections that immediately follow, featuring the material on social media, are very strong, although again, interwiki links to material on other chapters would make a considerable improvement to the argument overall and to the wikibook more generally.

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.


 * 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


 * 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%)

 * No evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * No engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Little or no use of discussion pages