User talk:ZachIsWack

I am ZachIsWack, and I am part of a team that will be writing on Wikibooks as part of an educational project for my university. ZachIsWack (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: What Makes A Good Wiki?
Collaboration with others is greatly facilitated by online forms of communication, most prominently Facebook, and the rapid-fire messaging relays these communications platforms come with make it very easy to talk to and work with other people. Different forms of social media have different creative applications, though. I primarily use Facebook as a way to quickly chat with people who have a few spare minutes in their lives, usually about a new idea of theirs or about some progress either of us has made recently on a project. I will occasionally use FB to talk with someone about a project we're both working on, but I'm much more likely to just text or email them about it. On the other hand, I often use sites like tumblr to stimulate the creative parts of my brain, either by uploading something I find fascinating so I can locate it easily later, or by saving unusual or inspiring posts other people have made. Tumblr is a lot harder to talk to people easily on, so I tend to stay away from using it for that purpose. I wouldn't call it a social media platform in the traditional sense, but Google Docs is an incredibly handy tool for quickly sharing information amongst collaborators who can all apply this information to a particular project in real time, resulting in extremely efficient content creation for large groups of people.

Wikipedia and sites like it have very different forms of collaboration and communication. These sites are not platforms built with rapid-fire communication in mind, being structured much more like standard online forums. Anyone who has something they want to post on a page needs to justify it with a source and citation, and failure to provide both of those results in the deletion of their content. Communication takes place in the discussion or talk pages, and is focused almost solely on improving content and deleting useless content, with little in the way of frivolous activity. When people do engage with each other it is almost formal, which seems very unusual until you remember this is a completely serious project and it needs to be taken seriously. ZachIsWack (discuss • contribs) 11:31, 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, it is a little descriptive, and could have drawn from relevant reading that you've been doing, to build on your argument. It is a good start, however. I also suggest that 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.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are good, and although a little on the brief side, actually contain a fair amount of detail which is articulated in a very formal but accessible style. The only thing really to remember on this is 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. I like that you are beginning to discuss in an open and critical way (that is to say, you've responded to what other people are saying and are contributing meaningfully to discussion - arguably the civic element of wiki that you ought to be thinking about, which you clearly are).

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 17:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you approached the task of considering your personal experiences well, especially in the critical thinking you showed of your online use, which I would assume is quite habitual. I also thought the idea that Wikis were not built to facilitate 'rapid-fire communication' was interesting, and something I had not considered. :) Lucystewpid (discuss • contribs) 22:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC) Lucystewpid (discuss • contribs) 22:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility And Data Trails
I personally am relatively invisible online. I don't post that often on Facebook, and almost never on tumblr, but instead will often just like or favorite posts that I find amusing or enjoyable. The only things people are going to know about me is what I comment on various posts as well as the little personal information I have on my Facebook profile, which only my friends can look at. I'm sure that due to privacy policies and the way various networks operate that at least most of what I post is not considered content that I personally own. If anyone wants to know more about me, though, they'll have to sift through everything I've ever posted online, since I've been so reclusive on that platform. I have heard of data mining and the various ways in which data is used to provide an advertising experience, and I am sure that every post or click I make contributes to what I see. Disturbingly, I have made searches and decisions on my smartphone's internet browser that affect what I see on my computer's browser, which made me realize that advertising online is ubiquitous and there is no real escape from it.

I have multiple different accounts across many forms of social media and gaming platforms, such as Facebook, Steam, Google, tumblr, Reddit, and LinkedIn. Everything I post on each of these accounts can only be seen by the people who follow me or who I am friends with, but that just means that I have to be extra judicious about what exactly I post. The problem comes from the online/real life divide, since I often will look at certain pages on Facebook that I would rather no one else see. So while I would like to like a post or video, sometimes I have to keep myself from clicking that button on reflex so that everyone I'm friends with doesn't see silly memes or stupid videos on their timelines. Tumblr is arguably worse, since it seems like everyone on there uses their anonymity as an excuse to get offended over the slightest things, so I often post nothing at all. Steam is much easier to work with, since I'm only friends with people my own age on there I can post and chat however I want, so long as it's within the community guidelines. I'll often hit people up and say hi for a bit using far more informal and offensive vernacular than I would anywhere else online, which is a bit of freedom I only really have on that one platform.

On Wikibooks, I'd argue that leaving trails of data and information is actually a good thing, since it allows other users to see what I've been up to, how I've contributed, whether my sources are correct, and whether or not I've been a troublemaker. On this particular platform, there's no reason to chat about how my day has been or what I've been up to, so there's no reason to worry about people seeing things I don't want them to see. The only real stipulation for interaction on this site is that you keep it polite and focus on the task at hand, which really frees me from having to think about whether or not what I post will negatively affect me. If all I ever post on this site is queries about how it works and how to change it, and the well-researched writing I'm doing for this project, what do I have to worry about? On Wikibooks, so long as you're open to criticism, patient with others, and ready to do some good work, there's no reason to worry about what people will see when you post. ZachIsWack (discuss • contribs) 12:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I think your thoughts on Facebook are insightful as to someone else's point of view about the specific form of social media. My views however, differ from what you have said. I also rarely post on facebook and just like photos and comments but I often find that other people can see what I have commented on or liked (or even posts I've been tagged in) which can be seen by any friends on their timeline. This I think suggests that our security is somehow even less than you would think online. If your friend tags you in a photo then your profile is then hyperlinked for anyone else in that list of people to then access your profile. Do you not think that this is an issue with security of personal information? I like your point about the internet in general tracking your searches and using them in order to advertise things that are tailored to what you have previously searched for. This is something that I think should be remembered because although it is not your personal details that are being remembered, your searches on your computer have been tracked and used by a website ion order to make profits. In alignment with this though, do you not think that computers remembering passwords and bank details can be somewhat risky when accessing important things such as your email or even your bank account. The fact that this is now offered to people as an option doesn't seem very secure or safe because you never know when someone might be able to access your account if your password is saved. I like your comparison with the other types of social media to wikibooks. I would agree that wikibooks function of tracking what people have been editing and discussing can be a good thing as it allows users to easily follow a line of information that they may need within someone's profile and I think it must be remembered that this is in fact a more professional website and not used for personal reasons like Facebook and Twitter. You may want to consider talking about the ways in which the key concepts and theories within the module intertwine with your views on the subject and see if there is any relevant information that will link in. SuzanneClark22 (discuss • contribs) 13:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Zach, I feel, from reading what you have put in this post, that we use our social media in a similar way. I like how you distinguished between how you use different social medias based on the audience that each social media attracts, as I also tend to be more cautious about what I post on Facebook as opposed to other media sites. I was however surprised that you never mentioned Twitter at all, for me it is the most prominent social media site so found it interesting that you do not use it when you are active on so many other major sites. I don't use tumblr myself but I could imagine it must become frustrating with the level of people that freak out and get offended at the smallest of things. People these days can be far too soft when it comes to theses things, which puts me off using sites like that. I would also agree with the idea that Wikibooks is something you don't need to be cautious over what we post, assuming we follow the simple guidelines that are put in place for us. Harry1875 (discuss • contribs) 16:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

We definitely have similar trails of thought running through our posts. In response to your comment regarding your phone's browser history and that of your computer, I too have noticed this, because I run Google Chrome on both platforms this doesn't surprise me too much. What I have noticed especially is that by following links on Facebook, usually to online shopping, I end up having similar ads rather rammed down my throat in subsequent uses. You also mention Steam, which I do use, but almost completely annexed from the social aspect, but even it gives suggestions based on my previous purchases. To loosely connect this to some theory, Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism speaks about the mistakes that can be made in an online profile by the 'hive mind' but in the case of Steam, these suggested titles are delivered via an algorithm and are still wrong nine times out of ten. Just because I like Football Manager doesn't mean I'll enjoy some random cricket simulator (I hate cricket).

Lastly, Don Lamberton's New Media and the Economics of Information gives us an insight into the theories of data trails. He points out telemarketing being a predecessor to spyware or similar software. Personally, I believe even polling carried out by governments could fall into this category. A new form of advertising I have noticed before YouTube videos is a bit of market research rather than traditional ads being directed at users who may not be interested in them.

LewisCollie (discuss • contribs) 22:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I think your thoughts are insightful. I agree with your comments and very good insights on contrast and compare the visibility of many different social media platforms. In addition, you put forward questioning about the data mining, and the various ways in which the data is used to provide an advertising experience, which is ubiquitous and there is no real escape from it. This shows social media platforms still have the problems with personal privacy.

Moreover, you clearly points out how differences between Wikipedia and other social media platforms, also you illustrate the strengths and benefits of the visibility on Wikipedia. I totally agree with what you said that leaving trails of data and information is actually a good thing, since it allows other users to see what I've been up to and how I've contributed. I also feel that that is actually a good thing that can increase transparency, which means people can trace the source and once they find errors or mistakes, they can modify and improve in time. In my opinion, Wikipedia is focused on the academic aspect, but other social platforms are concentrated in people’s everyday life. So what's the difference(s) of the interaction between them? Do you think the visibility of Wikipedia is completely harmless?

Shekkkkk (discuss • contribs) 22:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload
I deal with the utterly ridiculous amount of data that exists on the internet very poorly simply because its so easy for me to become distracted by a few errant links to a music or gameplay video. In fact, my inability to properly deal with this distracting information is why this post is two days late: I completely forgot about this exercise while doing research for the Wikibook (and also because I started watching a playthrough of a video game on YouTube). When I AM able to deal with all the distractions it's usually as a result of being under extreme pressure to finish my work in time to meet deadlines, and even then I keep a tab or two of music open that I click back to every so often. As for how this question applies to my browsing when not related to academic things, I often just block out or ignore what doesn't interest me, in essence creating a filter bubble that removes the more unsavory or boring aspects of my time on the net. I tend to deal with it this way because in my private life I am extremely lazy and find it easier to just put off my work for a few hours longer unless I'm in a group project. It's worked for me my entire life so I suppose I just never learned or heard of another way to deal with all of it. As it stands, I am able to sift through the required reading to find the information I need for this project, but it is somewhat buried under everything else. Maybe I'm just looking for the wrong things. Though I have finished a decent amount of research I unfortunately find myself still hampered by my old habits. One thing that I do that is helping me to break them is to think up issues we might run into while doing this project and jot them down to ask in the Reading Room, which I will do later today. While this does help me concentrate on the project I find it difficult to really buckle down and get done what needs to be done, which is really starting to wear on me as the weekend approaches. Fortunately for me and the group, we've all created a list of sections to focus on in the chapter we're writing, and we've assigned some of those sections to each person, which greatly reduces the workload and removes the helter-skelter approach we might have taken otherwise, but increases the chances of overlapping information. Of course, any info that is repeated can be edited out when we smooth out the entire chapter before next Wednesday. ZachIsWack (discuss • contribs) 03:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I liked the way you discussed your laziness as it pertains to getting work done. I, too, have very similar problems. I tend to delay doing work until it's pretty much too late. I definitely think that the lure of the internet's many avenues of distraction is very troublesome for those who already have issues maintaining motivation. Scottmcindoe (discuss • contribs) 11:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4 Wikibook Project Reflective Account
The collaborative process of the Wiki*edia websites produces a very interesting environment. Never before have I seen so many people so dedicated to producing accurate and unbiased articles and books, and it is a rare sight indeed to see so few arguments online anywhere these days. It seems like everywhere I go, no matter what site I visit, there are people hiding behind the veil of their usernames or anonymity, and they say anything that comes to mind, no matter how inflammatory. I’ve seen collaborative projects collapse because of these exact environments, so it’s a little interesting to see how the environment of Wiki*edia produces such calm and thoughtful discussion between its members. I think that perhaps this calm “workplace” is the exact reason that people are able to carry out their work on these sites in relative harmony: they have almost no incentive to butt heads over trivial issues, and their clashes are over things like making sure sources are correct or trying to properly edit a page.

The actual process of working with my group was rather interesting, since we were all trying to do research for most of the eight days that we were working on our particular chapter and had only had one meeting which was in-class on the day of the final WikiLab. That meeting was to discuss the various sections we’d split the page into, and we assigned everyone a section to cover during that time as well. This was the last time I’d see them in person all in one place. Over the course of the next eight days, I was doing research on my topic, Data Mining, and talking with the group about a few things on our discussion page. That is basically how it went for the entirety of the project, and we had no issues amongst ourselves, likely because we all knew we had to buckle down and get things done.

I was very surprised by the speed and level of detail my questions were answered with in the Reading Room. The users there are very helpful people to anyone who comes in with a question, and they respond in a timely and concise manner.

I would actually liken the people on Wikibooks to a fandom of their own. Fans of nonfiction, if you will. They all seek to catalogue knowledge in the form of unbiased and well-sourced free textbooks online, and they have developed an entire system and culture dedicated to aiding them in that goal. People in fandoms generally tend to be friendly and kind with each other, and that’s exactly what my experience was like while I was contributing to the book. Everyone is very patient and understanding, and the collaborative efforts that groups undertake produce a general feeling of unity among their members. In fact, the Wikibooks fandom is perhaps the most polite fandom I’ve ever seen. I took a look through each section of the Reading Room and I saw no harsh words or pointing fingers, though with the nigh-Orwellian ability to delete such posts from existence it may simply be that the unsavory elements of the wiki are glossed over or removed entirely, which still ends up cultivating a nice work environment. Overall, this entire experience was very exhilarating. I mean, who else can say that they got to write a textbook?

ZachIsWack (discuss • contribs) 11:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I really like the points you make in your reflective account of the Wikibook Project and can relate to many of them. For example, you raise the point that people on Wikibooks collaborate together to create a piece of work in a manner where there are next to no arguments involved. After reading your reflection I came to realise that in my group, and it appeared to be the same in other groups too, the feedback was mainly positive and the discussion page was filled with helpful information. People came together online to encourage other users and also to think of ways to make the process more efficient and accurate. I agree with you that on other sites people can use usernames to hide behind, creating an often unpleasant outcome, and I think that due to the nature of the project we have taken part in this was not an issue.

You mention that you only met with your group in person once to get things organised and set up, and our group also used the online discussion page as a platform to have almost all of our Wikibook discussions on. I think this was easier in some ways, because anything that was discussed could be re-visited and re-read. If we had talked about everything in person, it would be difficult to remember what final decisions we made and the outcome may have been messy. With the Wikibooks layout, every move on the page can be tracked, and changes can be made to plans through editing quickly and effectively most of the time. I thought it was good that if something needed attention of a particular member of the group then there was the option to tag them, so that they were notified and would definitely get the information required.

I think that your comparison to Wikibooks users and fandoms is a very interesting one. I had not thought about it like this, but I can see what you mean when I reflect on my experience using Wikibooks. While there is a divide between those who know everything about how to produce a Wikibook and those who are new to the system, everybody is able to come together and learn from others. You mention your experience using the Reading Room and I think this highlights the importance of not creating a feeling of shame for not knowing something, but providing a supporting environment to improve our skills on a platform many of us had never experienced properly before. Overall, I think this project was able to teach us a lot about the importance of collaboration and learning from others. Ailsaharv (discuss • contribs) 16:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought your nod to how contextual factors could impact our experience of Wiki was very interesting. I guess without being particularly conscious of it, interacting on an online forum void of any hostility was quite refreshing, given that I am so used to social media saturated with aggression in regards to politics, especially since the lead up to the last US election. I also agree that the environment of Wikibooks was very positive, and it made me smile when I saw posts by people with an authentic enthusiasm for curating knowledge. I think that likening that community to a fandom was a very clever way of explaining their dynamic. Lucystewpid (discuss • contribs) 01:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Zach, this was a good post and I think you summarised your experiences on wikibooks well. You also touchded on a few points I had not considered. I like primarily the lack of arguments that you pointed out. It is quite a nice change in comparison to other websites I've used, especially on the format of one like wikibooks, that you think would lead to a lot of arguments. However, as you also pointed out, everyone pulled together and worked on it as a team, and through this good communication there wasn't really much space left for arguments. The discussion that we had as a group also helped me massively and I feel the entirety of people working on our wiki chapter reaped the benefits as everyone I've discussed it with felt a lot more comfortable in their role after that point. I never personally considered the project anything along the lines of a 'fandom' but you do make an interesting point. The way everyone rallied around and passionately committed themselves to the one topic was very alike to most fandom experiences so I feel that was a very valid point. Harry1875 (discuss • contribs) 12:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)
The introductory remarks at the beginning of this chapter are quite visual and alert the reader to the image of a doubling – a theme which is implied throughout the chapter in terms of information flows and how they are regulated through both connectivity and user behaviour. Very interesting, and sets up the narrative of the chapter as a whole.

This narrativising work is extended into the accounts of Chomsky, Adorno and others – a well written and concise summary of each approach and some critical commentary included. I think that more could be made of making interwiki links to various relevant sections in this, and other, chapters (especially, perhaps, chapters on News, Evidence and Memory in Online Communications, the section on private sphere linking to Privacy in a Digital Age, or certainly there are whole sections in the Digital Labour chapter that are of immediate relevance here.) The narrativisation is excellent on the section involving the work of Pariser, and extending the Five Filters to Five Data Points.

Some really useful work on personalisation, and excellent coverage of information flows. These sections feature evidence of wider reading and research, as references to specific peer-reviewed materials to substantiate the argument. The discussion of data trails is good – however, it doesn’t attain the same level of criticality as these other examples (although some references to academic sources are used). This section is also an example where the text-heavy nature means that it’s fairly heavy going to read. Use of wiki commons images to illustrate the argument would help to not only break up the text, but to make more of the platform’s functionality.

Media is already a plural term.

Some more joined-up thinking could have extended and beefed up the arguments in relation to the section on “Control over what we see”. There’s a subsection on “filter bubbles” here which seems to repeat already-mentioned material. A wikilink to other parts of the chapter where this is already discussed would probably have done just as well as these few sentences, which sort of appear as an anomaly in this section.

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, although my feeling is that this could have been extended significantly, especially through looking at what other chapters were writing about, and making the connections between there and the arguments here more explicit. Some of the formatting seems to go awry in the middle, so a little more joined-up thinking and a little more effort in presentation there would have been useful.


 * 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


 * 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.


 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, featuring discriminating command of a good range of relevant materials and analyses
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material to a fairly wide degree
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument through 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);
 * evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections);
 * clear evidence of independent critical ability

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