User talk:Xavithehat

Hello my name is Xavi, I am part of a university class project to work on a wikibook as a collaborative group. As someone that is entirely new to this side of Wikipedia and WikiBooks, I am very excited to take part in the projectXavithehat (discuss • contribs) 14:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki exercise #1 What makes a good wiki?
In the age we now live in the number of online social outlets is huge; ranging from chat rooms where you can remain entirely anonymous, to platforms like Facebook and twitter where your identity and presence is everything. Along with the various social platforms there also exists the numerous blogging platforms and forums where we are able to share our own views and opinions freely. However as platforms for sharing go arguably the largest is YouTube, which is now an integral part of the entertainment industry, as well as a social sharing platform. Many popular YouTubers hold a celebrity status that was once reserved to actors and musicians. They possess a near reality-star position within the greater online society. Though anyone can have a YouTube channel sharing your ideas and building the following to share them widely can be difficult. As such Twitter and Facebook are arguably two of the easiest platforms for masses to use. Though Twitter and Facebook both require you to build your follower/friend base to share your ideas all it takes is for one person to share/like/retweet your post and overnight you could go viral. As such one funny video and you’re an overnight sensation, however despite the potential for both these platforms they are generally not ones that aide workflow, but are perfect for sharing ideas. This potential for overnight sensationalism is not necessarily a positive in a society that cares more for a video of a dog riding a bike than the growing popularity of fascism throughout the modern world. All these platforms, used correctly do provide the perfect discussion board for real evolution of thought however, regardless of actual importance. Xavithehat (discuss • contribs) 01:26, 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.


 * 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.


 * Indeed, 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.


 * 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 need to make more effort to respond to the brief, which you have not done on a number of levels.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – none undertaken. This would effectively halve your mark in an assessed situation.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

(Comment) -Not sure if the 'comment' bit was necessary, just wanted to make sure people could differentiate between the actual post and my comment. Totally new to this!!- I think you make a lot of good points, and do agree with what you've said to a large extent. I just mainly wanted to comment on your point about overnight sensationalism/the fact that society cares more for a video of a dog than growing fascism. I see where you're coming from here, but I think an argument could be made that actually social media is possibly helping to build people's knowledge about said fascism/negativity in politics etc. What I mean by this is that, yes, of course there are some people who want nothing to do with politics/debates/moral issues etc on the internet, however I definitely think that more and more awareness on these subjects is being spread on platforms such as Twitter. As soon as I log onto Twitter the top things on my timeline are generally political or in regard to one social problem or another. Granted this may be due to who I follow, but I feel like I would likely see this content regardless of that matter. It just seems to me that on social media people (and I would argue young people especially) seem to be becoming more and more passionate about these kind of issues and engaging with them/learning more about them and how to fight against them (obvious ones being the huge debate on legality of abortions as well as human rights globally). I for one think this is an extremely positive thing and I am enjoying partaking in discussions online myself. Hope you respond with your thoughts on this! Liaa13 (discuss • contribs) 10:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Exercise #2: Visibility & Data Trails
The World Wide Web as a resource holds a near endless number of possibilities for what (we) its’ users can do. As such how one uses the internet and how much information they intentionally provide on it depends on the user. So how visible are we online, and what kinds of data trails do we leave are two subjective questions.

The easiest way to discuss these questions are to look at several frequently used platforms: e.g. Snapchat, Instagram, and Facebook. These platforms are all social, where we are able to present part of (or create) our own identity. Through them one is given the potential to document every waking moment of one’s life, or to sit back and only occasionally contribute.

However even if one only chooses to provide the slightest glimpse at who they are, keeping their personal information to a minimal, and rarely contributing it is not guaranteed that you are any less visible than someone who snaps every meal, instagram every outfit, or posts about their every thought.

Why is that?

Well in the case of Instagram you grant them very broad licence rights for the images you post, they are able to pass on any images on their app too any third party they choose. Not only can they be sold by Instagram, anyone use your pictures -whether it is a selfie or a candid photo of your cat- due to the flexibility of copyright laws. Someone that takes advantage of this is artist Richard Prince who displayed giant screenshots of other’s Instagram posts at the Frieze Art Fair in New York in 2015.

In the case of Facebook it is easier simply to quote from their privacy policy :

''“We collect the content and other information you provide when you use our Services, including when you sign up for an account, create or share, and message or communicate with others. This can include information in or about the content you provide, such as the location of a photo or the date a file was created. We also collect information about how you use our Services, such as the types of content you view or engage with or the frequency and duration of your activities.”''

Regardless of what you use Facebook for you are as visible as anyone ever could be.

In a privacy policy released by snapchat they provide a more simplified version allowing anyone to easily understand what they do with the information the collect from its users. In a brief summary; almost all information provided to Snapchat INC through signing up, sending of snaps, and location can be used to better serve Snapchat INC, and the third party groups they work alongside. What information they share exactly is not always clear, and how exactly they use the information is equally as cryptic. In 2013 however there was a piece released by Business Insider about how Snapchat stores all Snaps you send and receive within your device. Based on the findings of a digital forensics examiner named Richard Hickman, the article can come as a surprise to the many users that felt it a secure and entirely private service. Albeit an outdated piece to reference.

''' How much of what is shared is under your control? '''

As the user by agreeing to the terms & conditions of the various platforms you are accepting whatever it is they intend to do with the information you share; even if it is unintentionally shared. So very little of what is shared is actually under the users’ control, and cannot be avoided without boycotting the platform itself. Xavithehat (discuss • contribs) 18:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Xavithehat (discuss • contribs) 13:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Xavithehat (discuss • contribs) 14:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I find it interesting how you related everything back to the terms and conditions of the different social media platforms. Many people, myself included, don't read the terms and conditions before agreeing to use a site so a lot of the time, we probably don't know what we are agreeing to and who we are giving our information to as well. Facebook is one app I have noticed that remembers your key strokes and what you click on (through cookies etc) and will bring up ads based on your interest. The site also remembers who you interact with most, and will put their posts closer to the top. Same with Instagram, ever since they updated their app photos don't go in order, it now goes by who you interact with the most or who has the most likes. I could have a photo on my feed from an hour ago with two likes and a comment down at the bottom, and one with 300 likes and 20 comments be the first thing I see because Instagram is able to trace your movements on the app. At some points, they even have sponsored ads based on your likes or your posts. So even if your Instagram is on private, they are able to see what you're posting and liking because of their privacy laws. Snapchat is a bit different because there isn't anything for you to like or share. All you do is post a photo of yourself looking like a dog or with a flower crown or out with your friends drinking, but they collect all of your snaps. We both touched on the same concept with that (except mine was more towards facial recognition and the government being able to see everything you send out) so seeing articles about how these social media platforms are run and finding out just what is in the terms and conditions we agree to only raises the question about how private are profiles actually are. Americankatie (discuss • contribs) 13:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki exercise #3 Information overload
In the modern era the amount of information we have on hand is immense. Through the internet one is able to find out just about anything they want; you can learn a new language; an instrument; how to cook; the uses are numerous, and all are possible without ever even leaving the comfort of your bed. However to access the great trove of information one must deal with the constant bombardment of extra information, whether that is in the form of adverts on the corner of a webpage, ones you are forced to watch prior to the video you wish to see, or popups. Every time one uses the internet the risk of being snowed under is ran. The simplest way to deal with these bothersome adverts is through the use of various browser add-ons like AdBlock which does exactly what the name suggests. This goes a long way to streamlining the amount of information you are force fed, but when using platforms such as Facebook one can never really avoid the overload. Through the use of cookies Facebook is able to target you with ads, and pages that its algorithms think you would be interested in. Instagram now does a similar thing by breaking up your feed with the occasional targeted advert. AdBlock – and other apps like it --- I have found is the easiest way to deal with mass of information from adverts as it cuts most of them out and makes browsing easier. Arguably there are no set factors that make me make the decisions I do regarding this information; other than my using apps to block much of them out simply from lack of interest. Unfortunately my workflow and attention to coursework has always been seriously restricted by the sheer magnitude of information available to me. Whether it is spending hours on YouTube listening to music and discovering new artists, or watching videos on games, and trailers of upcoming films. Even worse is Facebook where, at a moment’s notice, you can be dragged into a pressing conversation about which tele tubby was the most evil. The effort required to focus on drier academic literature can be horrendous, and too often one’s mind drifts to the wonders one could otherwise be perusing on the greater web. Xavithehat (discuss • contribs) 18:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you make a good point about the great amount of both useful and pointless information out there. Technology has advanced so far to the point where the internet is an amazingly useful tool. But, for every valuable piece of info on the internet there are three more which are incredibly useless and often overpoweringly distracting. Scottmcindoe (discuss • contribs) 15:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Exercise #4
As a culmination of several weeks of workshops centring around the cohesive collaboration of multiple parties across the broader World Wide Web – the wikibook worked perfectly as a transition from theory to practice. Wikipedia as a resource is does what it is designed to do perfectly, it enables stranger the world wide to collaborate towards a greater quality of work. The wikibook project was an interesting model of that process, where several groups from different classes had to work together through the various methods provided by wiki. The necessity to communicate primarily through wiki’s discussion page for our chapter –The Online/ Real-life divide – being due to the exercises grading scheme. The use of the discussion page better simulated how it would really be using wiki to work with people the world over, we were not able to simply meet up, write it all out, and then paste it in to our allotted chapter. Though groups did meet, and many members of the project communicated through various other platforms, it was fundamentally the wiki resources that groups relied on. This online source of collective intelligence – where it is both crafted, and often crafted – is an exceedingly interesting method of communication. This is true for wikipedias entire user base, and for those students participating in the wikibook – Living in a connected world, as already mentioned. Xavithehat (discuss • contribs) 19:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright Xavithehat, just a quick comment on the last wiki submission. I find your post and opinion on the wiki project very similar to my own. The point you made about, the online source of collective intelligence is an interesting method of communication, I like the way that sounds and sums up our wiki collaborations very well. Good stuff. Lewislbonar (discuss • contribs) 20:14, 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.


 * Poor. Your contribution to the book page gives an acceptable brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a qualified familiarity with concepts associated with your subject, and although there is an effort to deliver critical definitions, the grasp of conceptual and analytical issues although reasonable, tends to be a little limited and insecure. There is evidence that you draw from relevant literature and scholarship, however your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is slightly lost, perhaps due to a limited depth of understanding the subject matter or over reliance on rote learning. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a minimally sufficient 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


 * 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.


 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, featuring command of a fair range of relevant materials and analyses
 * some evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * articulated and supported argument through judgement relating to key issues, concepts or procedures
 * some evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position);
 * some evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections);
 * some 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