User talk:Vickthestick

Part of a University of Stirling wikibook project Vickthestick (discuss • contribs) 18:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: What Makes a Good Wiki?
First Contact

In many ways I have been fortunate to have been around at the beginning of the invention of computer games, the World Wide Web and social media. I played Pong on a friend's game console at the age of 8. My younger brother was in the first year at school when Computing Studies was presented as a subject. In the early years, each new technological development seemed to be introduced one thing at a time and I managed to keep up as all-things-techy moved on. Nowadays, however, technological development seems to have exploded in all directions; the initial tree trunk of technology has developed myriad branches with each new branch growing exponentially, so that now, I don't feel that I know very much of anything at all!

Use of Social Media I use Facebook as a medium for communicating with family who are in Yorkshire and across the world. It's also a handy medium for posting pictures of my Rainbows doing activities and for communicating with parents. I mainly post photographs of the children, with wee captions as anchorage. I keep these pages Private and Secret but recognise that this information is open to a wide group of people, some of whom I know better than others, and I therefore keep the tone light and the information likewise. It's a social platform and therefore I am regularly tagged into a private chat group for the purposes of organising social events, such as parties or camps. I follow a variety of pages of interest, including professionally-related pages and this is also my main means of accessing the latest news. My Facebook page feels personal, as it contains personal photographs and information that I have clicked to access, although I am conscious that I am not seeing those pages which have been filtered out by the algorithm gremlins.

Technology for Work - Collaborative Possibilities

At work, I use Edmodo and Glow as media for communicating with students. Although these are not social media as such, being closed systems within a secure and limited school population, they do allow both whole group and 1-2-1 interactions and Glow does have a similar capacity to be used as a Wiki: Glow documents can be shared within a specified group and worked on simultaneously by any number of participants. The finished document however would not be available to the public unless it was moved from Glow to another platform. Glow can be used similarly within staff-only groups to develop shared work programmes but very few people actually do so; they just aren't that techy-minded. I have contributed a variety of work-related information to professional file-sharing websites but these do not allow you to work within the webpages; it's a case of uploading ready-created materials for others to access, download and then amend as they see fit. They do not then re-upload an amended version of the original and so you don't see what has been changed, if indeed it has. This also has similarities with Wikipedia but stops short of sharing in the same way.

I have often used Wikipedia in the past as a consumer and advised my students that it's okay to use it as a first port of call but that they should then look for corroborating evidence elsewhere, advice which is even sometimes adhered to. I have not previously created anything through Wikipedia but I have worked collaboratively quite a bit, usually around a large sheet of paper and some marker pens, and I am looking forward to seeing how collaboration works using technology. Vickthestick (discuss • contribs) 21:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Vickthestick (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 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.


 * 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, your comment that technological development seems to have exploded in all directions relates to some of the issues already discussed on the module. You may draw from your own reading on acceleration of media innovation, built-in obsolescence, and similar themes, to explore this aspect of work further in your project.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are ok, but very 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.


 * Lastly, making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would go a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, as you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this will make a considerable difference.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 10:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vickthestick, I have never worked with platform as Edmodo or Glow before,but I can pretty much imagine how they work based on your your description. I would like to think of Wikipedia as a “secure and limited platform” as well other than social media, because it has the purpose to create a shared work, which should result in an informative piece accessible to public after the working process is finished. With the difference that you do it all online and anonymously, not knowing who the users are. Still, it is limited because Wikipedia follows a purpose. And I would not believe that many people log in and actively engage in discussion if they would not want to be productive.

When reading your comments on my discussion page, I had one question coming up: Why do you find the idea of collaborative creation daunting? If you are able to discuss contentious issues and are able to come up with a good result. The content we consume on Wikipedia (me included) has to be created first. By the way, I like your older daughter´s use of Facebook as a platform of organisation like an online diary. I have never thought about it this way (because I obviously use it differently.) But now that you mention it, one of my close friends uses Instagram somehow as her diary/logbook, not only to keep the other members of the groups or her friends up to date, but to conserve her memories within these pictures and to later on look back on what she has experienced and where she has been to. --DesireeSophie (discuss • contribs) 14:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Data Trails
Online Visibility

I Googled myself.

The Online/Real-Life Divide

My professional role is clearly visible. My designation as an English teacher is featured alongside a list of other staff, as a reference for parents. Prior to the creation of the school website this would have been printed as part of a school handbook and distributed to parents at the start of every school year. The creation of the website, and thereby the inclusion of my name within it, is a clear development of the new 'technoculture'. This development, a clear shift from oral cultures to written communications and thence from script to print and finally, as in this case, from print culture to that of 'electric media', enables the school to save time (in retyping and reprinting and distributing the school handbook every year) and also money (a simple modification to an online document and reposting online is much cheaper than spending hours of personnel time as well as the actual cost of printing).

Privacy in a Digital Age

I am happy to share with the world that I am a teacher. I am less happy to share my family life to the same extent and therefore my Facebook settings, (and that's the only social media platform I use) are set to Private. I share photographs amongst friends and family, with the expectation that they will not share them on, although this is, of course, uncontrollable, especially given that Facebook's terms and conditions state that they are able to use any information posted in any way they so choose. If, as Astra Taylor suggests, 'the dominant business of the Internet is surveillance', then I want to limit my exposure to that as much as possible without it actually having an impact on the ways in which I would like to use the technology at my disposal. In other online respects, such as my occasional use of Pinterest, I am not concerned about whether anyone can see me collecting resources for my professional or personal use. I don't upload anything I have created myself and therefore feel less protective about this.

Technology as an Extension of Self

Marshall McLuhan's assertion in The Global Village that advanced connection between people across the world is achieved through modern technology is certainly one of the main reasons for my use of Facebook, which facilitates the sharing of information to family and friends in Yorkshire and across the world. The speed of the connection means that information is received near-instantly, rather than, previously, the several weeks entailed in sending a letter with photographs enclosed.

The Hive Mind and Collective Intelligence

Edmodo is an enclosed educational platform which enables staff and students to exchange work and messages. A group can be initiated by a member of staff and students are given a code with which they can join. Content cannot be seen outwith the page members and very little personal information is held by the programme and so it is a reasonably secure system. Whilst not being a social media platform per se, all members of a group are able to respond to each other, discussing work and ideas in much the same way as the Discussion or Talk pages work on Wiki*edia. Pierre Lévy's discussion of collective intelligence and the hive mind, the idea that collaboration should be for the 'mutual recognition and enrichment of individuals rather than the cult of...communities' certainly applies here. Edmodo clearly attributes individual contributions to their authors. Jaron Lanier would certainly approve.

News, Evidence and Memory in Online Communication

The Newsfeed on my Facebook page contains a variety of information, from traditional news broadcasters, such as the BBC and Al Jazeera, as well as new items from various pages of interest, professional and personal and a variety of posts by individual friends. Facebook's On This Day feature encourages its subscribers to post previously posted information and in a way, this accumulated information acts as a diary once would have done. Jill Walker Rettberg's suggestion that the audience for these posts is not just friends, but also ourselves would seem to be correct, at least from my own perspective.

Vickthestick (discuss • contribs) 10:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment on Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Data Trails


Hello Vickthestick,

Firstly, I have to admit I am amazed on how well-structured your argumentation (in logical and visible sense) is. (How am I able to do a chart?)

''“I am not concerned about whether anyone can see me collecting resources for my professional or personal use. I don't upload anything I have created myself and therefore feel less protective about this.”''

That is exactly how I feel about my online security as well. I also agree with Astra’s Taylor point of view. The internet offers us a lot of potentials, it is up to us how we use them. And Facebook’s terms and conditions are just a good example on how the internet works in general: once content is uploaded, it will remain there and not be in your control anymore. It is a contentious topic. On the one side the notion of all the collected data scares me (which can be used for surveillance), but on the other side I feel like it is really helpful to prevent terrorism or track down commonwealth harming activities. I found a good parody website of the NSA called Domestic Surveillance Directorate.The Daily Dot, a digital news homepage, discovered it and portrays it I this articel.

But even though it is just a satiric page, it has some true points of the actual governmental surveillance and makes me think about all the advantages but also disadvantages of online surveillance, the internet’s dominant business.

--DesireeSophie (discuss • contribs) 15:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have been using the search boxes on Wikipedia to find out how to do things like boxes and replies and references and footnotes and I also took a note of what Greg was saying were good examples and I keep going back to those to check out new things, especially with regards to how things look. For example, the contents pages pop up automatically once you have four or more sections, but you can also insert this really easily yourself. I am going to check out your references - they also sound fun for my Media students to play with.

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload
I once had a head of department who kept a small black book. It did not contain a list of lovers' names as you might expect, but was a list of all the books he was going to read. He crossed off the books as he went along. But, and here's the thing, new books were continually being published and he was continually adding to his list. He had to be discerning about what he added to his list to have any chance at all of getting through them. Sadly, he wasn't able to. And information is like that. You no sooner find one piece of information about a topic, when another piece of information becomes available, modifying, adding to or superceding what has gone before. It is impossible to get to the end and, like the book-reader, judicious decision-making needs to be made.

How to decide? Some information is more important than others - needed for work or study, for example. Some information is time-dependent - if I don't do those reports now then my boss will be breathing down my neck. And so I have a sort-of-system of working which means that I look at information coming in, however briefly, and decide whether it is important. If it deemed unimportant at this time then it is swiftly binned or deleted. If it is deemed of sufficient importance, I then rank it in time order, dealing with those most important, time-dependent items first and leaving other, less important, less time-dependent items to a more leisurely time.

This system may seem ruthless, but I would otherwise be swamped and nothing would ever be achieved. I have finite time at work, at home, in life, and so these decisions must be made in this way. Adding time to dedicate to study has been especially challenging with the weekly reading, lectures, seminars, computer lab sessions all adding to the information overload but all of it requiring precious time. Time away from tasks which are currently just sitting and waiting for completion when I have more time available to dedicate to them.

Time to complete the Wikibooks project is having to be carved out at odd times of the day and the flexibility to do this is the only thing that is enabling me to complete the project and collaborate with peers. If we had infinite time, then we could assimilate infinite information. But we don't, so we can't. Vickthestick (discuss • contribs) 17:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment on Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload
Please add comments below Vickthestick (discuss • contribs) 09:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi ,

Your comparison of the continuous reading list and the flow of information is really picturesque! On top of that, as soon as you dive into a topic and try to get your way through the overload of information, which keeps adding and piling up as you go, you sometimes find new hints and traces of aspects, you have not considered before and lead you on new paths. Hence, you could discard some books of your reading list, which you wanted to read before and just cross them out of your small black book. Because our aim can also change as we go. The way you describe your way of dealing with information is just like in a prioritiy matrix. You surely have to do it in order to keep your life ordered.

Which is even more difficult for you than for me I would assume, because you are much more occupied than I am with your work, studies and family. Even I sometimes feel like I would live in two separate worlds, my private one and the working/study life, in which I have different kinds of information popping up and different ways on how to deal with them. And even though they are both deeply intertwined with each other, I am sometimes just feel like getting rid of all the work-related information to truly have some leisure time.

I agree, time is limited but that is what makes it precious. Information on the other hand seems unlimited thinking of what the world wide web has to provide. Therefore, it is a lot more selective and it is precious to find the correct piece of information you are looking for.

Regarding your comment on my discussion entry:

Our brain is a huge network itself processing information as we go. Sometimes, it would be nice to just be able to switch it of like a mobile device, which I should do more often. In the BBC articel you linked, the co-author Dr Gijsbert Stoet, of the University of Glasgow is cited saying:

"Multitasking is getting more and more important in the office - but it's very distracting, all these gadgets interrupting our workflow."

Which fro me pretty hints of what I am thinking: It does not matter which gender you are or how multitasking you can be, once you are distracted you, you can not be efficient in your work/doings any longer.

--DesireeSophie (discuss • contribs) 21:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I like the example that you used about your boss and his books. I think that that paints a good picture of all of the constant stream of information that is available to us. I too handle workload and information in a similar way. I often find other technology to be distracting and therefore I am often procrastinating. Because of this, I have different kinds of information to prioritize. Not only do I have to sort out the information that I need for work or school work, but I have to manage the information that goes on in my private life. This would include limiting my time on my social media accounts and conversations through messaging with my friends and family in order that I can finish my work. As I said I like to procrastinate so this sometimes is difficult for me to do. But I agree with your last statement that we do not have unlimited time, so I have to choose to do the most time sensitive and important things first. Sam ediko (discuss • contribs) 21:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I find a ruthless approach to dealing with information overload is necessary. Especially when considering that information is never ending, as you described in your given example about the 'black book of books'. The thing with information is, once its out there, someone will build on it, and then someone else and so on. Each time someone builds on it they in essence add a brick to the topic, and the issue with this is the more bricks there are in a construction the harder it is to identify, or even focus on, just one. Therefore, I agree with your ruthless approach. However, do you believe that time is a motivating factor, and with that time limits? As you said if we had infinite time we could have infinite information; but the thing is, without the motivation of time would we get much done at all? --Campbell Wallace (discuss • contribs) 14:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments  and You are quite right in saying that priorities change and so our focus and interest in information changes accordingly. I had not thought about the ways in which I have done this over the years, both professionally and outwith school. I once read that in order to be truly efficient you should have a very clear task and not quite enough time in which to complete it, which encourages you to be completely focussed and ignoring distractions which would eat up the time you have available. I find I am like this, and work efficiently when I have a clear target and deadline. Otherwise, as you have all suggested in some way, I find myself wandering down information avenues which are not really necessary, encouraged by the technological platform to click to the next page, and the next, suddenly having lost both time and focus, still not having completed the task I set out to do. Vickthestick (discuss • contribs) 10:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
Used to working autonomously within a professional team who are physically present, the challenge of collaborating with a group who I barely see, to produce a text in a language I do not speak, felt, at times, insurmountable.

Sharing resources, ideas, links and feedback from your classmates

helpfully started us off with a link to a relevant research article and collaboration developed organically from there. Streamlining the discussion pages to reflect the chapter itself was helpful in keeping track of discussions, otherwise information overload would have kicked in. Conversations with other contributors about the best way forward was helpful in directing the work to be done.

Maintaining engagement with the themes and concerns of the module

The extensive range of topics covered within the chapter of the book were inter-related and negotiation enabled some clarity in order to avoid repetition. However, at the time I didn't think about checking in with the contributors to the other chapters to ensure that the content was not being replicated across the rest of the book.

Writing for a small, supportive audience in a research environment

The collaborative presentation of topics was reflective of Lanier's suggestion that by collecting myriad ideas, you can include a range of views without committing to any of them and cannot be wrong. I added a post to the book and another contributor would amend and edit, thus rendering my 'ownership' of the original text void.

Practical application of the principles of peer-review, discussion and debate

Timing was tricky. I had some free days in which I was able to make a start and so started posting but that coincided with the university reading week and large numbers of the group were not available to collaborate with. When the book was nearing completion, I was in the busiest week of my professional year, struggling to keep up with the sudden onslaught in communication and unable to do anything other than edit what others were posting. Additionally, apart from computer-lab time, I wasn't able to meet up with my small group due to work commitments and communication outwith the book discussion pages was limited. It was all very frustrating.

Vickthestick (discuss • contribs) 10:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment on Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
Please comment below: Vickthestick (discuss • contribs) 16:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

you made a valid point about connection across the book with the other groups. I suppose everyone was so busy trying to finish our chapter that we forgot to connect with other groups and see what they had to offer. That said I feel like if content is repeated, it would still differ slightly as each chapter would relate the information to the topic at hand, like social media in the Privacy chapter versus social media in our relation to Online Identity. So long as there is relation to our topic then while some subtopics may be repeated, they can still offer a different perspective to the reader. As for the frustration regarding the organization and completion of the book, I think it really just proves Wiki*edia as an information database rather than a social platform. Although our work came together in the end, the lack of notification and the fact that few of us were used to using/checking Wiki*edia made the whole arrangement more annoying than other group projects would have been. Natashakirmse (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks I did find the Discussion pages clunky, as  had said. One of the problems I encountered was as a result of forgetting to sign each comment I made, then having to go back and amend, so that other contributors knew who to reply to, whereas on a dedicated social media site, it is very clear who is making the comments, as these are 'signed' before you have even written a thing. I got better at it! Vickthestick (discuss • contribs) 15:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * and
 * I can only agree with you. Regrading notifications and keeping track of what is going on on our Wikibooks Discussion page was really messy at times and hard to follow people's discussions. I also agree, that it proves Wiki=edia as a Infromation database, but still it could be a bit more user friendly in use like the SNS. I had an eye on th eother groups and chapters from time to time, but felt lik ethey had the same struggles than we did. Everyone started rather later with the engagament because of the majority's absence during the reading week (even though it would have been a good time to start, I myself have been on vacation for some days) and at the end as the timr was running out everyone engaged massively that it was hard to follow and bring in, also due to the own engagement in other things. It is always hard to really schedule a longterm project with so many people that you barely know. I guess taht is also why we had the smaller groups within our big group, it enabled us a bit more of a segmentation within the chapter group. --DesireeSophie (discuss • contribs) 08:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)
The introduction section is incredibly well-written, summarising many key points in relation to the subject matter. A concerted effort is made to communicate sophisticated ideas in a concise, summative way, before proceeding onto the main sections of discussion. The overall structure that follows is well thought out, and evidences deliberation, delegation and timely organisation. Coverage of many of the salient issues surrounding online identity are included, as well as some quite well-chosen examples and cases.

The actual content itself, in the discursive sections, is a little more patchy than what we expect after that Introduction, with some parts that are more superficial and descriptive, yet others that are clearly very well researched, developed, and thought through. The overall effect of this is fine, because as a whole, there is a clear aesthetic that you are writing a hybrid version of a collaborative essay, and an encyclopaedic entry.

There are some instances of typo errors, and a few formatting decisions that could have been better thought through. In addition, the repetition and ill-organisation in one or two subsections (especially the Tinder and Online Dating Websites section, where there is a lot of description, and not much application of theoretical material from the module – references to journalistic pieces on anonymity for example, where reference to good peer-reviewed sources would have given just as good information with obvious added value and opportunity. Anonymity appears in a couple of sections barely sentenced apart, and yet there doesn’t seem to be much joined-up thinking here, nor applying the concept to the section’s subject matter (Tinder and Online dating). Likewise, discussions of various applications repeat (e.g. Snapchat has a few sections specifically devoted to it. Some interwiki links joining up the various sections would have made more of the platform’s functionality.

The final main section, on AI is particularly interesting – it is fairly well structured, well researched, and draws from a wealth of different kinds of sources and materials – ranging from peer-reviewed sources, through journalism and popular cultural materials, to speculative and science fiction. This helps to close off the chapter in a way that establishes a sense of authority as well as being well-written, and therefore is an interesting read, on its own merits. Again, an interwiki link to join the section on Black Mirror with the previous section on the same topic would have been useful.

Referencing – good formatting, good range of sources and materials.


 * Very Poor. Your contribution to the book page gives a deficient brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a qualified familiarity with concepts associated with your subject, and the grasp of conceptual, factual and analytical issues tends to be limited and insecure. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes lack a secure basis.

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%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content to an appreciable standard (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Good 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 judgement relating to key issues, concepts and procedures