User talk:Zoe090909

hi Zoe090909 (discuss • contribs) 15:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Exercisesocial 1 Screen-time survey
The way you chose to categorize screens? The reasons behind choosing to categorize screen time in that way. The difference in participation use of screen The contexts in which screen time is shaped In terms of choosing the categorize screens, I prefer to divide it into three ways. The first one is the size. When we installed something on the device, it is very important to have a good screen view. There are four generalized sizes in our daily life: small, normal, large, and X-large. It depends on which one would you like. For some child or woman, their hands are not big enough to hold the X-large size. For the elder, it is not clear or convenient to have a small screen for the reason that they are the diminution of vision gradually. The second one is the situation of using the screen. For example, the teacher or manager of the school or company, they prefer to choose an elegant one and light one, so that they can carry it everywhere quickly and convenient. There is another example, the driver like a big and black screen. In this way, they can see the maps vividly and clearly, as well as keep the GPS clear. Thirdly, the shapes of the screen. Android automatically scales’ layout so that to properly fit the screen. IOS is more simple and elegant. For the child, Androids’ phone with different colors and different shapes is attractive. For the young person, Apple is a good choice to follow the fashion trend. For the youth, the most effective way is to pick the hottest ways at that time, which means the way that majority people use. So that I can get enough information to communicate with others. Compared with other ways, this way is more safety and saving lots of time. With the wide usage of phones, computers, and other electronic devices, screens time is coming. Zoe090909 (discuss • contribs) 13:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC) Zoe090909 (discuss • contribs) 21:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 2.Annotated Bibliography
How We Think: Digital Media and Contemporary Technogenesis’ The author poses this question at the start of this bracing exploration of the idea to make the reader think through. In the text, the author shows the evolution of the field from the traditional humanities and the way that how the digital humanities are changing academic scholarship, research, teaching, and publication with many related examples and academic works. She also goes on to depict the neurological consequences of working in digital media. Before I read this book, I though bibliography only from a book or a journal. However, Annotated Bibliography is more than just a brief summary of a Web site, an article, or another type of publication, even the research or big data. Zoe090909 (discuss • contribs) 03:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Zoe090909 (discuss • contribs) 20:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Zoe090909 (discuss • contribs) 20:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Zoe090909 (discuss • contribs) 21:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Zoe090909 (discuss • contribs) 21:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 3: Social Movement Case Study
Basically, the Social Movements Reader combined with digestions by cases, concepts, and essential readings. The division of chapters are logical and scenically. The reason why and how did the movements occurred and declined are in detail by plenty original text with the examples happened in the US and abroad. Who participated in or gave up also summarized in logical, how to organize and mobilize, the interaction between sports and other macroscopic mechanisms, the results of sports and other macro propositions…and so on. In this book, it abrades the knowledge about social movements or theories of social movements. “Political or Social Protest Protest refers to the act of challenging, resisting, or making demands upon authorities, power holders, cultural beliefs and practices by some individual or group.”(Jeff Goodwin, and James M. Jasper, John Wiley & Sons, 2014.) “A social movement is a collective, organized, sustained, and nonlife, a situational challenge to authorities, power. For holders, or cultural beliefs and practices.” (Jeff Goodwin, and James M. Jasper, John Wiley & Sons, 2014.) Guided with that two concepts, the women’s movement is obviously and outstanding. As others, social movements, the women’s liberation movement had a quite inconspicuous start. The women’s freedom movement contains two branches, one is reform, and the other is radical. In another word, there are women’s rights and women’s liberation. It always starts in groups in seriously styles and different organizations. Some of them were fit into the traditional society reorganization, but some of them not. On March-August of 1909, women workers in Chicago, and workers in the national textile and clothing industry held large-scale strikes and demonstrations. They wanted to increase the salary upon the eight-hour work system, and get the right to vote. This is the first organized mass struggle of working women in history, which fully demonstrates the power of working women. The struggle received wide sympathy and enthusiastic response from women and the masses in the country, even the response from other countries in the world, and finally, the women won. To memory the first International Women's date 8th, March 1911 and to memory the first International Women's Day people named March 8th as International Women's Day, also known as March 8th by Women's Day, and March 8th International Women's Day. It is a festival for women in all countries in the world to strive for peace, equality, and development. Zoe090909 (discuss • contribs) 21:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Wiki exercise 4 what is wiki?
"A wiki is a collection of editable pages about a specific subject and is used by a team to collaborate on content about the subject." "A wiki is a collection of web pages that can be modified by anyone who has access to it. Some wikis are open to anyone with a web connection - others are tightly controlled by small project teams." It is a hypertext system that is open on the global information network and can be collaboratively created by many people. Ward Cunningham first developed it in 1995. Ward Cunningham defines the wiki as "a social computing system that allows a group of users to create and connect a set of web pages with a simple description." Some people think that，the Wiki system belongs to a network system of human knowledge, allowing people to browse, create and change Wiki text by the web, and the cost of constructing, improving and publishing is much more than HTML. The version is small. At the same time, the Wiki system also supports collaborative writing for the community, providing the necessary assistance for collaborative writing. Finally, the wiki writer naturally constitutes a community, and the wiki system provides a simple communication tool for the community. Compared to other hypertext systems, wikis are easy to use and open, helping to share knowledge in a domain within a community. When I was using the wiki for collaboration, the most challenging part is on time communication, for the reason that the members cannot get together have an open conversation as convenient as talking face to face. Wiki as a team project, only the members, have the priority edit and add comments on the web page. Every coin has two sides. This measure keeps the discussion page clear and ordered. Once, I lost my account passcode as well as can not loge on. However, I can not join our class group, so that, I miss lots of messages, even updated my homework on time. I signed the account with the icloud email address, which connected to the iPhone ID. Someone stole my phone so that I can not log in my email and the wiki account. So that, it is better to develop a completed system to find back the account and password. Wikis can contain links directly or images on the page being viewed. In this way, Wiki is an open website can gather kinds of resources and "Wikipedia is not a single wiki but rather a collection of hundreds of wikis, with each one about a specific language." Wiki is an open and collaboration resource platform, as well as a bilateral communication and reacts platform.

Reference
1. https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/help/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.ibm.lotus.connections.wikis.help%2Fc_wikis_overview.html http://www.ceebl.manchester.ac.uk/events/archive/aligningcollaborativelearning/Wiki.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki

In terms of the definition of Wikibooks, the author will explain it in two ways, the official introduction and traditional recognition. On the home page of Wikipedia, it shows Wiki is a “free encyclopedia that anyone can edit”. And it contains 5756157 articles in English so far now. On the dashboard of Wikibooks, it says Wikibooks is “the open-content textbooks collection that anyone can edit”. As well as has 3044 books with 81575 pages. In my opinion, Wikibooks is a high-quality project-based learning platform and open to everyone for free. In one word, the author regards the Wikibooks as a community capability map, as well as a tool for communication and sharing. In traditional, “visibility was a function of printed output like books, book chapters, and peer-reviewed journal articles primarily available in academic libraries. This is rapidly changing with the exponential increase in electronic, online indexing of these materials.” Wikibooks as a social media platform, it makes the printed output easier and clearer, even cheaper. As a community capability map, it emphasizes its visibility by sharing each other’s ideas and opinions and resources. The more discussion on the page, the more popular it is, as well as the more information it contains. However, there is no communication page for users secretly. For example, if I want to get in touch with my partner, I have no links or ways to connect with my partner indirectly. At first, I can’t publish anything sec on the discuss page, and I had tried many times it shows I have no right. After that, what I said can be sawed by everyone. And when we have a face-to-face group discussion, we are cautious about typing words on the discussion page on Wikibooks. In some degree, Wikibooks like a result and fruit sharing, but not the discussion and thinking sharing. Wikipedia reverses and enhances the method of traditional encyclopedias, with the main feature of making improvements to many editors and rewriters. At the same time, many people are prepared to spend time researching the topic and proposing a new opinion and words. Therefore, in what ways can it be used to help facilitate collaborative research? The author has a project with a partner about living in a connected world. The author found lots of resources and materials to support the article, as well as the partner did a lot. We discussion on What's App and type our short essay on the discussion page and share each other’s opinion. He always has a clear destination and direction of our topic. During the discussion, we change our topic once, thanks to the in time and sharing platform, we can keep going with our project. So, in what ways does Wikibooks foster a community? In my opinion, it fosters an open community in discussion and sharing, especially the improvement during the process. The user and editor can get an improvement after that. Wikibooks as an online collaboration, it makes lots of people with a common interest get together, they share their ideas and talk with others online. They rely on each other’s output. It represents a digital commons by sharing and output. The author doesn’t think that wiki platforms offer potential form online emancipation totally. In some degree it is. However, the user must obey the regular online, so that it is not the emancipation. Zoe090909 (discuss • contribs) 04:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Zoe090909 (discuss • contribs) 04:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Zoe090909 (discuss • contribs) 21:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Zoe090909 (discuss • contribs) 21:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Zoe090909 (discuss • contribs) 21:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Zoe090909 (discuss • contribs) 21:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Zoe090909 (discuss • contribs) 21:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Zoe090909 (discuss • contribs) 21:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Zoe090909 (discuss • contribs) 21:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Zoe090909 (discuss • contribs) 19:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Collaborative Essay and Discussion Page
In terms of the definition of Wikibooks, the author will explain it in two ways, the official introduction and traditional recognition. On the home page of Wikipedia, it shows Wiki is a “free encyclopedia that anyone can edit”. And it contains 5756157 articles in English so far now. On the dashboard of Wikibooks, it says Wikibooks is “the open-content textbooks collection that anyone can edit”. As well as has 3044 books with 81575 pages. In my opinion, Wikibooks is a high-quality project-based learning platform and open to everyone for free. In one word, the author regards the Wikibooks as a community capability map, as well as a tool for communication and sharing. In traditional, “visibility was a function of printed output like books, book chapters, and peer-reviewed journal articles primarily available in academic libraries. This is rapidly changing with the exponential increase in electronic, online indexing of these materials.” Wikibooks as a social media platform, it makes the printed output easier and clearer, even cheaper. As a community capability map, it emphasizes its visibility by sharing each other’s ideas and opinions and resources. The more discussion on the page, the more popular it is, as well as the more information it contains. However, there is no communication page for users secretly. For example, if I want to get in touch with my partner, I have no links or ways to connect with my partner indirectly. At first, I can’t publish anything sec on the discuss page, and I had tried many times it shows I have no right. After that, what I said can be sawed by everyone. And when we have a face-to-face group discussion, we are cautious about typing words on the discussion page on Wikibooks. In some degree, Wikibooks like a result and fruit sharing, but not the discussion and thinking sharing. Wikipedia reverses and enhances the method of traditional encyclopedias, with the main feature of making improvements to many editors and rewriters. At the same time, many people are prepared to spend time researching the topic and proposing a new opinion and words. Therefore, in what ways can it be used to help facilitate collaborative research? The author has a project with a partner about living in a connected world. The author found lots of resources and materials to support the article, as well as the partner did a lot. We discussion on What's App and type our short essay on the discussion page and share each other’s opinion. He always has a clear destination and direction of our topic. During the discussion, we change our topic once, thanks to the in time and sharing platform, we can keep going with our project. So, in what ways does Wikibooks foster a community? In my opinion, it fosters an open community in discussion and sharing, especially the improvement during the process. The user and editor can get an improvement after that. Wikibooks as an online collaboration, it makes lots of people with a common interest get together, they share their ideas and talk with others online. They rely on each other’s output. It represents a digital commons by sharing and output. The author doesn’t think that wiki platforms offer potential form online emancipation totally. In some degree it is. However, the user must obey the regular online, so that it is not the emancipation.

＝＝Reference＝＝ https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_visibility The Research of “Integration between Information Technology and Education” To Develop the Minds for Kids and Young People

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_visibility The Research of “Integration between Information Technology and Education” To Develop the Minds for Kids and Young People Zoe090909 (discuss • contribs) 20:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Zoe090909 (discuss • contribs) 20:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Zoe090909 (discuss • contribs) 21:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Zoe090909 (discuss • contribs) 21:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
Posts of this standard roughly correspond to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is in relation to the making criteria as outlined in the relevant documentation, it should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band overall:


 * Posts of this standard do not address the assignment requirements. They offer little to no engagement with the concerns of the module. They are poorly written and comments are often extremely brief or missing. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.

I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to take a closer look at the assessment brief to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets. Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this will make a considerable difference.

Detail:
 * Ex#2: this annotated bibliography entry is a little dry and would benefit from more creative use of the platform to generate a more visually-engaging price e.g. captioned images. There are also some real problems with your grammar and expression here - I wonder if you would find it of benefit to seek additional support to help improve your academic writing. Certainly, additional proofreading prior to submission would improve your work immensely. It is also, if anything, a little short – you could have added at least one more sentence, if not two to flesh out your account here. It should be noted that this work was submitted past the 7-day limit for late submissions.
 * Ex#3: This reads, somewhat curiously, as a sort of review or annotation of the Goodwin and Jasper edited collection, rather than as a response to the specific brief. Again, some work is needed on your academic English in order to articulate more clearly, and your work tends to be on the descriptive side. In addition, it is rather a shame that you didn’t use the platform’s affordances (e.g. use of captioned images from Commons) to help illustrate your argument, and to visually engage the reader. It should be noted that this work was submitted past the 7-day limit for late submissions.
 * Ex#4: This piece is characterised mainly by factual description - whilst empirically accurate, this doesn’t really add anything to your response. Once the piece gets moving, there is some reflection, and an effort to at least note a couple of sources. However, a more considered, critical approach to the brief would have added significant value to your argument here.

General:
 * 'Reading and research': evidence of critical engagement with set materials; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material. Needs work.
 * 'Argument and analysis': well-articulated and well-supported argument; 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); evidence of independent critical ability. Needs work.
 * 'Presentation': good use of wiki markup and organisational skills. Needs work.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on your contribs to Essay Discussion Page
Contributions to discussion of this standard roughly correspond to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is in relation to the making criteria as outlined in the relevant documentation, it should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band overall:


 * Among other things, contributions at this standard may just offer links without real comment or apparent point. They may offer nothing more than poor-quality synopsis or description of material of dubious relevance. They may have serious clarity problems (including dead links, random graphics) which affect comprehension (or even worse, admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement). They might be off-topic, private trivia, or of unclear relevance. The wiki markup formatting will be of a poor standard.

In addition, you were asked in the brief to address the following guidelines in terms of contribution, engagement and conduct, Here is an evaluation of those elements of your activity on the Essay Discussion Pages: •	Students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.

•	Evidence from contribs to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of editorial activity as evidenced through ‘contribs’). These are primarily considered for quality rather than quantity, but as a broad guideline: o	Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial” o	Items on a contribs list that are <1000 characters are important, and are considered in the round when evaluating contribs as a whole because of their aggregate value o	It is expected that you will make at least one contrib per day, for the duration of the project


 * Marginal. Inconsistent engagement throughout the duration of the project. A small number of smaller edits made on both your own pages and on the main essay discussion page. Unfortunately, there are very few of these and not at all at the frequency or volume expected for this level. There are, additionally, no contribs that could be considered substantial, significant or considerable by the criteria above, as set out in the assessment brief: although it’s important to acknowledge that this is about quality of engagement much more than quantity, one would expect at least one or two of these more weighty contribs in there which would have made a positive difference to the essay and to the project overall.

•	Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages o	Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration 	Marginal. o	Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay 	Marginal. o	Evidence of peer-review of others’ work 	Marginal.

•	Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages o	Clear delegation of tasks o	Clearly labelled sections and subsections o	Contributions are all signed 	Marginal.

•	Civility. Your conduct is a key component of any collaboration, especially in the context of an online knowledge-building community. For further information about this in a Wikimedia context, please go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars. Please respect others, as well as observe the rules for civility on wiki projects. All contribs are moderated. 	Pass. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)