User talk:Valesagasti

 Wiki Exercises 

Exercise #1
Bullying

Whether we like to admit it or not bullying is constantly happening around us. At every stage of our lives we can see it: a six year old pulling a little girl’s hair, a fifteen year old excluding a classmate from a social event when everyone is invited, and adults using (most commonly nowadays) the internet to bully one another’s ideas and views.

This topic is very significant to me since I've known people very close to me who have been bullied. As much as we all have wanted to help, there is very little any of us can do when the bullies themselves don’t fully grasp how much pain and damage they are causing to a person in a psychological and emotional level.

There is a website I found which is ideal for any parent or guardian taking care of a child who may be a victim of bullying. They are available 24 hours a day through a telephone line, and they also provide other forms of services that may help guardians with any problems they may not exactly know how to solve, or help.

Family Lives

Even though we know a lot about about bullying and how much it may affect a person, there are a lot of us who wish to help, but may not know exactly the correct way how to handle it. This why I think this website is ideal for everyone to use it. Bullying is a part of our lives, even if we don't want to admit it, its everywhere. From physical actions to verbal words, doesn't matter what form it takes, bullying is harmful and it is great to have websites like these to help deal with it. Valesagasti (discuss • contribs) 11:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Good one! Well done! Gvg00001 (discuss • contribs) 12:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you have highlighted a very good observation of how individuals use the security of the internet as a device to bully. It very much correlates with the notion that while the internet, in particular social media services, have the aim of bringing us closer together, they unfortunately excel at creating disparity between groups and individuals. Many seem to believe that the internet provides a veil that offers protection and are blameless to any emotional distress or psychological problems that the victim may be terrorized by. And of course bullying in the 21st century isn't exclusive to online, just recently I stumbled upon an article about an 11 year-old boy who committed suicide because he was physically bullied for being clever. Intelligent people being outcast is nothing new, and I believe social media and the current propulsion of reality television popularizing dim-wittedness and vulgarity has only made knowledge and intelligence a threat to some, and unfortunately made ignorance synonymous with the norm. Because of this it's good as you said to have websites and contacts that can help with bullying and potentially save lives. Beespence1 (discuss • contribs) 18:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
It's clear through your reflections that Family Lives in an important charity for you, although it would have been useful to have seen further discussion of the website/charity beyond describing the rationale for why it is important. You've demonstrated basic competence of wiki markup, but your contributions would benefit from thinking of where else this could be used (e.g. including more links in places). Your comments demonstrate a level of engagement, although this could be more critical and reflect upon key themes from the module where appropriate.

A post of this standard roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor: 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. Sprowberry (discuss • contribs) 10:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Exercise #2
In my opinion, nowadays it is easy to find information about anyone online. Whether it be through Facebook, Instagram, LinkdIn, etc, there are many ways in which the people around us can be kept informed about our everyday life. Personally, I am currently part of three online platforms: Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram.

All three of them I use for different purposes. Facebook allows me to keep in touch with my family and friends who are abroad, and it allows them to see how I may be doing at university and my travels. For me it is mainly a way to keep in contact with everyone I have met. On the other hand, Snapchat more me is more close friends who can see exactly what I'm doing, at any point of the day.

The difference from Facebook to Snapchat is that I control what goes on my Snapchats (what pictures I want people to see and videos), I can control what other see. There is also a meeting on snapchat which allows me to block people who may be following me from seeing my snapchats. On the other hand, on Facebook others can uploads pictures of me, tag me in them, and that allows all of my fiends access to that information that I may not want them to have. Valesagasti (discuss • contribs) 12:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments

I found it interesting that you said you can control what goes on your Snapchat which I guess is true. However, once you post something on snapchat it can get screen shot and your friends may send it on to other friends and so on. There is also the problem that if someone takes a snapchat of you and posts it i guess that is out of your control and it could then be posted on other social media platforms. For the most part though I agree that snapchat is one of the few social media sites where you do have a significant amount of control.

I also agree that Facebook is used for different things and for a different audience. Personally I have a lot more "friends" on Facebook compared to snapchat so i would say i'm more visible on Facebook. However, i only use Facebook to post pictures and talk to family members like you said. I certainly would not want my mum as a friend on Snapchat!

--Amy Wardle (discuss • contribs) 13:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't use Snapchat, but I think I have heard that what we publish is going to be delated after 24 hours, is that right? If it is, I think this is a great thing! I don't know, if I used it, it would make me feel more 'safeguarded', I guess. I use Facebook pretty much for the things you said, even if I do not upload photos very often. To be honest, I use it a lot to follow some groups about the things I love, like TV shows, books, films.. --Nikynikay (discuss • contribs) 10:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that different platforms encourage different uses and therefore show different aspects of your personality. I think that our online visibility directly influences our online identity and that the uses of the online platforms are a large part of how our online identity is constructed - you are not exactly the same person on every website, rather an aspect of your identity is made visible that is social acceptable for the purposes of the page. Personally I love Snapchat because, as you say, one has that degree of control where it makes one feel more secure. I also believe that Snapchat is less artificial than the other social media platforms swirling around in the web, sure some photos are constructed, but alot of them are silly spontaneous documentation of their life they wish to share with their close friends - for me the intimacy, "realness" and security of Snapchat makes it superior to other social media platforms. --DunkyNG (discuss • contribs) 11:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Exercise #3
Since internet was introduced and since Google, Wikipedia and all the search engines were created. There has been an excessive amount of information that we can look for in the spam of 5 minutes. I believe this fact can have a positive and a negative view. On a historical point of view, after centuries of struggling with the problem of keeping information together and updated, we have finally been able to upload everything that has happened and will happen in history on an online server that will keep it organised and safe. This also gives access to everyone around the world who wishes to access any sort of information on various topics. The fact that there is a lot of information about the current events as well, give a possibility to reach out to the world and ask for help if a country is in need, or send warnings. A more or less recent example would be the Paris attacks this past November. Within minutes of the attacks, all around the world people had heard what had just happened in Paris. All over the various types of social media, people were sending prayers to Paris. On the other hand, there is a downside to having too much information. Main problem is that we can easily get distracted. Particularly for students, we all do our work online. Speaking from experience, whenever I am doing a research project, sometimes I will start research that project, and suddenly I will be reading an article about another topic that has nothing to do with what I was supposed to be researching. Especially nowadays that we don’t even have to use a computer to access information, it has become an even bigger distraction to just reach across and Google information on our smartphones.

The other problem with the great deal of information is out there is that we cannot do anything about it. It is there for us to explore.

Valesagasti (discuss • contribs) 13:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments
I find your point of view on the Paris Attacks very interesting. As you said the fact that there is a lot of information on the web and that they can reach every part of the world in few seconds is for sure a good thing. However, the first thing that comes to my mind when I read ‘Paris Attacks’ related to the word ‘information’, is that sometimes we cannot avoid focusing on something because internet reminds us about it. For example, during the Paris Attacks even Facebook forced you think about what was happening in France, which is not a bad thing but at the same time, it made you ignore what was happening in the other parts of the world. In fact, few hours before the carnage in Paris another massacre occurred in Beirut but news did not considered it as important as the Paris one. What I want to say here is that media can still decide to make us more aware of certain things rather than others, which is why we should be careful in dealing with the great amount of information that we can find on the web. GConcilio94 (discuss • contribs) 20:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your views on the uniting powers of the ability to instantly upload, share, and consume news, but when it comes to events like the Paris attack there is a darker side. Of course, the majority of the world viewed the attacks as they were: tragic and cowardly. Unfortunately, the problem with this is that current terror groups such as ISIS have already proven to be in command of a wide group of followers in all parts of the world. In the same way that people united against ISIS after hearing of the horrifying events, there will also be people who have been misled by extremist groups who will similarly unite over what ISIS views as a victory against the West. This can inspire attempts at copycat attacks and other acts of terrorism from people who feel falsely inspired by the violence. It goes without saying that the amount of support for Paris in the wake of the attacks far outweighed and out-justified the support for ISIS, but it is still important to recognise that the opposite effect is very much present as well. JacobTheOhioan (discuss • contribs) 00:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think your point on the Paris terror attacks is interesting, not only did people find out about it immediately but people took to social media straight away to comment on the events that were unfolding. This is definitely a positive if the amount of information we can now access, as it meant that as more and more details came through about the events we were able to know what was happening live. People in Paris were even able to share on Facebook that they were safe and unharmed, a relatively new phenomenon which is definitely an advantage to the overloads of information that are now available to us. However I agree that although there can be positives to the abundance of information that is available to us, like you I find it extremely hard to stay on track online and definitely get distracted by links and online advertising. Clarenotdanni (discuss • contribs) 11:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think yours is a good point. Everything in life has its good and bad aspects. Internet is a great tool, which gives you a lot of 'power' if you know how to use it and, in particular, how to take advantage of it. For example, I agree when you say that it helps you to stay updated about what happens in the world at the moment or, more widely, what happened in the past (which is, in my opinion, fascinating). We just need to be careful on how much we can become addicted to it. It's a great and powerful tool, as I said, but also really dangerous sometimes. --Nikynikay (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Exercise #4
Technology has allowed us to communicate with one another without face-to-face meetings. This applies to wikispace as well. After collaborating on a wikiproject with a large group of people I have realized just how difficult it is to agree and make good decisions with others since you must keep yourself online constantly to get updated. It may also become problematic due to the fact that a lot of people are trying to make decision at the same time, but since it is through an online source, it is hard to get everyones perspectives all in one. On the other hand, my seminar group met up face-to-face in order to answer questions we had and how to carry out the project, in a more organized way.

Nevertheless, it has been noted by Banaji and Buckingham that young adults usually create most discussion blogs about topics such as politics. This is because online communication has provided a sense of freedom of speech, for those who don’t like public speaking, and it has also provided easier access to communicate with people from around the worldwide to get their input in.

Valesagasti (discuss • contribs) 10:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree when you say how difficult it is to work with a lot of people. It's already hard in face-to-face groups but I think it's even more complicated in online projects, as the wikibooks one. This because there is no turn to talk and everyone can spike at the same time (even if they're just typing), there is no a direct debate but just comments which get an aswer a minute or two later. However, I also think that such a work as the wikibooks one would have not been possible if a large amount of people were not involved. A single person would have not been able to do that, I guess. --Nikynikay (discuss • contribs) 10:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
There are clear discrepancies in the quality of contributions to the wiki exercises (in particular, responses to colleagues, which are non-existant until the reflective exercise), and your contributions to the main wikibook chapter. Since both parts are equally weighted at 50%, this has had an adverse effect on your final mark. While there is some evidence of understanding, secondary reading, and critical engagement with the module content in the wikibook chapter, this is mostly lacking in the wiki exercises. Make sure to treat all parts of the assignment with equal importance.

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) 14:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)