User talk:Emmamchristie

Hi, I'm emmamchristie and I'm part of an educational class project to learn how to work as a team on Wikibooks.

Emmamchristie (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Various social media platforms can be used to aid workflow and help to share ideas. For example Facebook can be used successfully to communicate ideas by creating ‘group’ on the site. This allows everybody involved to see at a glance the amount of users in the group, ‘friends’ and ‘mutual friends’ who are also part of that group as well as all of the profiles of the other members who they may not know. Being able to see the profiles of all in the group is important for a platform such as Facebook as although it can be used for online collaboration to share information, it is at it’s core a social website. These profiles help others to distinguish a user’s personality through the online persona that they have created for themselves by means of their own pictures, media they share and comment on, and even seeing the way they interact with their friends and family. These may help people to judge a person’s credibility regarding the information they share online, however Wikipedia takes away all superficial aspects which makes the engagement far more formal as users have no idea who they are discussing ideas with.

The invited Facebook users are able to post relevant updates to the group which can be deleted by the admin who made the page to make sure all posts are relevant to the group discussion. This is much more organised than a simple Facebook ‘chat’ which can not be regulated as easily for a large group of people. However for small groups, the instant messaging can be very beneficial and increase workflow. This is much faster and simpler way of communicating than Wikipedia.

Facebook is an incredibly common platform that can have many different uses, meaning a huge amount of people have accounts and are therefore able to contribute their knowledge. This multi-use platform attracts many more people than having Wikipedia account does so naturally the type of users vary. Facebook is heavily focused on the social aspect and the majority of posts and comments are opinion based instead of valuing facts. The problem of ‘Fake News’ on Facebook is growing as users are prone to blindly sharing articles without fact checking. This means one can argue that the quality of information on Facebook is much less reliable than that of the information found on Wikipedia, which is interesting as both platforms can be used by anybody and there are opportunities on each site for discussion.

Emmamchristie (discuss • contribs) 02:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Emmamchristie:

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.

This post is at the upper end of this grade band, so a little improvement will go a long way to attaining a higher mark. 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, 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 fairly good, if a little 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. 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) but there is room for this to develop. One of the comments you made was of interest: The fact that users can be banned from Wikipedia if they are inappropriate or break the rules when sharing information is another difference that elevates the quality of the content. Does this not also relate to the quality of the platform? The fact that it's actually quite difficult to get banned from Twitter, say? This is something the reflect upon.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Comment by Morgaine Sinclair (Mmmorgaine) Your comparison between Facebook's 'chat' and 'group' features clearly show the online collaborations the site offers, as well as highlighting the differences between them and the communications found on Wikipedia. I agree with your point on the lack of fact checking causing fake news to spread on Facebook, making Wikipedia a more reliable source for information. Mmmorgaine (discuss • contribs) 17:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

The point you made about a problematic issue surrounding Facebook and the idea of 'fake news' is very important as I agree with your statement, especially when you stated that people tend not to check the facts before posting or sharing. I personally can hold my hands up and say that sometimes I tend to 'jump on the bandwagon' and share posts that may be of interest to me but, I admit I don't go the extra mile to check if these posts are factual or not. Eilish2 (discuss • contribs) 12:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Eilish2 Eilish2 (discuss • contribs) 12:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Mmmorgaine, you show a great understanding of the collaborative features available on Facebook. And 'Fake News' although more likely to be encountered on social networking sites, like Facebook, can still be a possibility on a media platform like Wikipedia because it is also readily available to everyone, and editing articles on it is just as simple. I also agree fully that the Facebook features are faster and simpler than having a discussion on Wikipedia, but it would be interesting to see how we all adapt to the differences over the course of the project.

SinaOhlandt (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Emmamchristie, I think your point about communication between Wikipedia and Facebook is important to mention. Communication on Facebook, specifically 'messenger' which you highlighted, is more instantaneous and allows for conversation and discussion to flow easily and smoothly. Users are also more likely to check their social media on a frequent basis whereas with Wikipedia it might be a few days before someone logs on to check their messages and give a response. I also agree with your point about 'fake news' spreading on Facebook and how it can undermine the reliability of content. However, as SinaOhlandt mentioned in the previous comment, it can happen on Wikipedia as well. Having said that, I do feel that even though Wikipedia users can edit anything on the site, it is much more likely for inaccurate information to be corrected by another user.

Hayleygil (discuss • contribs) 22:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)HayleygilReply

The main purpose of social media for many users is to share information about themselves online with friends, family or even complete strangers. This information can be in the form of anything from somebody’s opinions on politics to their relationship status. This is so that others are able to keep up to date with people's personal lives and feel closer to them even if they live far away.

Many social media platforms have a variation of privacy options to make users feel safer for example on Facebook only certain friends may see their posts or on Instagram, users must approve which accounts follow them before access to their pictures is granted. This however is not a guaranteed way that the information will only be shared with the intended users. The majority of devices (such as phones, tablets and computers) have the ability to screen grab whatever is being viewed on the screen at the time, meaning others can share this information with whomever they please - even if the original user deletes their post. As well as this, after something is deleted, in most cases it is still archived somewhere on the website meaning it is never truly erased. Certain websites are also able share a user’s information with other companies if it is in the terms and conditions (which many users neglect to read).

Emmamchristie (discuss • contribs) 01:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think you make some good points in this post. You make an interesting point about the screen grab function of a smart phone, I agree with what you have said about this, as you can not always be certain where the information you are making visible online may end up, for example, you might post a picture to your Instagram account to share with your followers, and from there your followers have the ability to screen grab this picture and share it to others that do not follow your Instagram account. However, the only social media platform in which is more secure is snapchat as you get a notification when someone has screen grabbed any of your snaps. Your last point is very good and this is the first time I've seen someone make this point, after browsing multiple wikibook pages. How do you think your visibility online links with your wikibooks account? Sammyforbes (discuss • contribs) 12:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is an interesting and topical conversation. Especially from a security and privacy viewpoint regarding 'screen grabbing'. As you have mentioned Snapchat sammyforbes I would like to add that even with that platform your photos are not safe. There are apps out there that you can access that allows for snaps to be saved and replayed without the sender knowing, scary I know. This example demonstrates the risks that are associated with using social media sites like Snapchat where users have the perception that the platform is secure.Lewislbonar (discuss • contribs) 15:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree with your point made and I also liked the way you phrased the fact that we share our personal lives on social media to those we know who live far away from us in order to feel closer to them - because I can relate to this! I also completely agree with your point made about screen grabbing/shotting, as nobody knows when someone has screenshot something of ours and forwarded it on elsewhere. Not only is this done with us knowing but nonetheless it is done without our consent also. Eilish2 (discuss • contribs) 10:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

In response to Sammyforbes, as Lewislbonar points out there are some apps that save the Snapchats that are being sent to their device, as well as being able to save people's full Snapchat 'stories'. This means that many users are under a false sense of security and are more likely to post content that they would not ordinarily post to Facebook, as they are under the impression the photo or video will be erased after 10 seconds or 24 hours. In relation to the Wikibooks account, every change we make to our talk pages is tracked very clearly and our visibility online is very clear. Emmamchristie (discuss • contribs) 11:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Information overload

With so much information on the internet, it is easy to be distracted whilst looking for a specific thing online. Social media sites and email accounts provide notifications which can pop up on phones, tablets and laptops even when the site is not actively running. This can be beneficial for keeping up to date with friends and colleagues instantly however when concentrating on a specific task these notifications can distract from the task at hand. To deal with this I will go to the effort of ‘muting’ certain sites, which is helpful unless am looking for information on one of these sites. Another distraction is the advertisements that fill the pages of so many internet sites, but again I prevent myself from seeing them using ad blockers so that I am not tempted to visit any unnecessary sites.

The problem with Wikibooks is that I do not receive these instant notifications as I am used to and I must be active on the site to keep up communication with other members of my group. Though this can be an issue, my group members and I have solved it by having face to face interactions and using the ‘ping’ feature on Wikibooks to ensure that when logged on to the site, members are notified of new and relevant information.

Emmamchristie (discuss • contribs) 11:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey Emma, I would also agree that notifications are the largest distraction on the internet. There is something quite addictive to getting notifications and I always find myself eager to find out what it is when I hear my phone vibrate. However I personally don't find muting social media pages effective, as I always end up checking up on them regardless of whether or not I have received a notification. What about the advertisements is it you find distracting? I often find them to be an annoyance but it doesn't normally lead to me being distracted from my work. I agree with everything you said about the Wikibooks notification, I found it increasingly annoying myself as I had connected it to my email address but I am yet to receive a relevant email that alerts me to notifications. I feel the conversation we all had in the lab class the other day cleared up a lot of issues I had personally about the project and now I feel very confident in the group going forward, I think the Wikibook chapter is going to look great!

@Harry1875: Hi Harry1875, thanks for the feedback! As I can get distracted very easily, the advertisements that pop up on sites often cause me to go off task. It is mainly the shopping websites that I have used in the past alerting me of a flash sale or reminding me of something on my 'wishlist'. The use of cookies means that the ads on my computer are usually tailored very specifically to me which can be handy at times but mostly just distract me from my work and make me want to spend more money! Emmamchristie (discuss • contribs) 11:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Emmamchristie: I think your point about the instant notifications problem with Wikibooks is a valid one, although I don't doubt there is some method of enabling push or email notifications to tell you when you have one even when you're not sitting on the site. I don't think this has been entirely detrimental to the Wikibooks Project though, as by simply logging on to our talk page you can see any and all activity there has been.

I did like that you mentioned ad block software, something I discovered a long time ago and now don't know what I'd do without. The problem with that is websites are becoming more savvy to the fact you are blocking their cookie software and are now requesting or forcing you to turn ad-block off before you can access their content. This form of advertising and monetisation of content that is seemingly free may be entirely legal; but seems somewhat immoral.

Cookies are probably the most obvious way we leave our data trail online, something many people mentioned in exercise #2, but they also contribute to the information overload. As was part of the lecture Greg gave on the topic, this ranges from keystroke data to mouse hovers, almost everything we do online is stored in massive data farms and kept well outwith our reach as casual users of the internet.

LewisCollie (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Similarly to most of the other students in the module, the wiki process was very new to me. As I am not particularly comfortable with using computers in any other way than basic office programmes and social media, it took a great deal of time for me to get used to. This is mainly due to the fact that so much of the inserts such as links or pictures are formula based which I have never encountered before. I have learned through other group projects that meeting face to face is often most productive way of getting through a project for me personally, as it is a designated time for work. The online process of collaborating on a wiki book was difficult as I often worked on it late at night and found it difficult to not get immediate feedback as you would in a face to face discussion. The fact that the platform did not provide instant notifications was also a great struggle for me as I tended to forget to log in to check the notifications as often as I should have which resulted in me slightly neglecting the Wikibook as I tended to focus more on other subjects that seemed to be more pressing at the time. The discussion pages of the Wikibook was a great benefit to me when catching up with group discussion as every thought process was listed and easily followed by my fellow group members, however as it was such a large group, the amount of information there could sometimes be overwhelming. I feel if I were to do the project again, maybe setting up a Facebook instant messenger chat would be helpful as it would be a simple way of keeping everyone in the loop. Emmamchristie (discuss • contribs) 11:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Emmamchristie:

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.

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.

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

Assignment responses receiving marks of this standard tend to not contain any merit or relevance to the module. Posts are one-liners, sometimes made up of text-speak. Often they are indicative of failure to comment on other students’ posts, and therefore do not engage with the crucial peer-review element. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement, or the user has been blocked for vandalism or other contraventions of wiki T&C. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.

• Reading and research:
  • no evidence of critical engagement with set materials;
  • no evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
• Argument and analysis:
  • poor articulation and lack of support in argument, or no argument at all;
  • no evidence of critical thinking (you did not take a position in relation to key ideas from the module, nor did you support this position in discussion);
  • no evidence of relational thinking (you did not make connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, nor did you support these connections in discussion);
  • no evidence of independent critical ability

• 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

The way in which we present ourselves online reflects not only who we are as people, but also the ever changing climate of the digital world. Our identities are shaped by the information we have access to and the interactions we have with people both real life and online. The convergence of media gives us a huge platform to experience more of this than ever before, and gives us many different platforms to present these personas. Sherry Turkle points out that we are constantly connected to this ‘network’ ^[1] which has integrated itself into every part of our lives, so much that we don’t really even think about all the platforms and communities that we are part of.

Having an online persona allows us to present the version of ourselves that we want the rest of the world to see - where we have time to edit and perfect every word, every picture and video that is posted. This can lead to people being very different online than they are in face-to-face situations. Personally, I find that my online persona will change depending on that platform I am posting on as I am aware that each one has a slightly different audience. On Facebook I am friends with family members and many people that I know through work or university so I have to make sure that anything I post is appropriate for these people to see. I am also aware that my full name is attached to the profile so I am mindful of the fact future employers may find it easily. On Twitter however, I’d say my persona is much more similar to the way I act in real life. This is because I’d consider the people who follow me to be my peers, and it is much less formal than Facebook.

These audiences that I am posting for heavily influence my online persona. By posting online we are opening ourselves to be judged and criticised may that be in a positive or negative light. This can come via comments and replies from other people, sparking conversation or more subtly through “likes”. The amount of likes I receive on a picture that I have posted gives me a sense of validation and confirms that it was a ‘good’ photo. With this knowledge, I am more inclined to post something similar in the future. This is an example of my audience influencing the way that I act online, or as Zizi Papacharissi explains it, I am “performing” for my audience. “These socially-oriented performances must carry meaning for multiple publics and audiences without sacrificing one’s true sense of self”.^[2]

It can be said that on Instagram and Facebook I am “sacrificing my true sense of self” due to my concern about audiences and likes, however on Snapchat where there is no such thing as “likes” for photos and on Twitter where my audience is my peers, I find that my online persona is much more true to real life as there is less of this ‘preformative pressure'.

References:

1. ↑ Turkle, S.(2013). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other.
2. ↑ Papacharissi, Z.(2018). A Networked Self and Birth, Life, Death. London:Routledge

Emmamchristie (discuss • contribs) 22:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Anders, H. (1991). The media and the social construction of the environment. Media, Culture and society, 3(4), 443-458 ^[1]

File:Global warming illustration.jpg

In this chapter, Anders explores the effect that the media has on public perception and their concern for environmental issues through the topics of agenda setting, diffusion, public opinion and media influence. To do this, Anders employs both quantitative and qualitative data gained from research carried out by other authors and opinion polls from the public. The scope of his research focuses mainly on European audiences and news outlets. This journal entry is useful to the research topic of digital media and the environment as though it mainly focuses on old media and news outlets, the themes explored are applicable to the digital space. This means that more specific research must be carried out. This journal entry will not form the full discussion on the topic at hand, however it is very useful to form an understanding on the public’s attitude towards the environment.

References:

1. ↑ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/016344391013004002

Emmamchristie (discuss • contribs) 20:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikibooks is an online collection of open-content textbooks ^[1] which are generated by a wide community across the globe. This community is able to contribute to any page on the site, creating a “network of knowledge that is structured ad hoc through multiple interlinkages between individual pieces of information in the knowledge base”. ^[2] The chaos of all this information is managed over on the ‘discussion’’ pages of the wikibook. Here, users are able to communicate their ideas to the group and organise the page into a general plan for each chapter. As well as this, users are able to gain familiarity with one another by their usernames, meaning they can directly address any user about the information that has been shared.

The visibility of the platform is what makes wikibooks such a successful resource. Every single thing that is written is online for anyone to see, including people who do not have an account. During the project, I felt that the use of usernames of members on the discussion pages gave me a sense of responsibility to post quality content, as the information was linked back to me. Even when usernames are not signed, each user’s ‘contributions’ are easily viewed. This means that throughout the project, each member of the group was able to see not only what I had contributed, but also what I had deleted. This holds people accountable for their actions, for example if a user was to tamper in a negative way with the content on the page, they may be blocked from the site.

The entire layout of wikibooks is designed to facilitate collaborative research. During the Wikibooks project the website allowed multiple groups of students to edit the same page at the same time. Huberman and Wilkinson point out there is a general trend that the greater the number of users working on a Wiki article, the better the quality. ^[3] During the project I witnessed just how useful the talk pages can be, as the group was able to partake in collaborative research by sharing annotated bibliographies and ideas that might not relate to our own section, but may help another user with their one. At first I found the discussion page very difficult to navigate as we were all new to Wikibooks and were unsure as to how to format the page properly, resulting in information and conversations taking place in the wrong sections. However, as time went on the page became slightly clearer thanks to the addition of tables and more relevant subsections so I can imagine that a discussion page full of experienced Wiki users would be incredibly useful and efficient.

It could be argued that these discussion pages foster a sense of community among users as they are a large group working towards a common goal. The fact that users are able to choose to contribute to any page may give them the opportunity to discuss niche interests with other like minded people, giving them an online experience that they may miss out on in real life.

The community of wikibooks provide their knowledge for free, not only to other members, but to all the consumers of Wikipedia. “Commons refers to a variety of solutions, resources and knowledge that are shared by a community of commoners” ^[4] The fact that Wiki platforms can be accessed by anyone with an internet connection establishes the site as one of the largest digital commons spaces available. The members sharing their knowledge have nothing to gain financially and receive no notoriety on the final product. The entire wiki platform is based on sharing for the good of public knowledge, unlike social media which is based on sharing things for attention.

Although wiki platforms seem to offer a huge amount of freedom to users, I don’t think they can offer online emancipation. Looking back at the intense visibility on wikibooks, the pressure of being in a community setting can often modify ones behaviour. It is also easy to see if users are not following the guidelines which will result in the account being removed or blocked.

References:

1. ↑ https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks
2. ↑ Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang
3. ↑ Wilkinson, D., & Huberman, B. (2007) Assessing the value of cooperation in Wikipedia. First Monday, 12(4)
4. ↑ Gutiérrez, R. (2018) Understanding the role of digital commons in the web; The making of HTML5. Telematics and informatics, 35(5) 1438-1449

Emmamchristie (discuss • contribs) 20:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Grade descriptors for Engagement: Engagement on discussion pages, and contribs of this standard attain the following grade descriptor. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this descriptor will give you a clearer idea of how the grade you have been given relates to the standards and quality expected of work at this level:

Very Poor. Often, contributions of this standard are quite brief, are structured poorly and are not spell-checked. They are often irrelevant, and offer little engagement with the concerns of the module or the assignment brief. Contributions of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be of a very poor standard and as a result it will be difficult for the reader or fellow collaborators to engage with the discussion.

As instructed in the labs, and outlined in the assessment brief documentation, 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:

Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable”

Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant”

Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial”

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

Overall:

the engagement in evidence here is very inconsistent and mainly concentrated in the last day or two. Being inactive for the majority of the project period meant that you weren’t left in a position to build significant or substantial contributions over time and therefore it is difficult to see where or if any significant learning has occurred. There is some evidence that you have made some effort to engage, but it is really a case of too little, too late to really get much out of the project.

Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages

Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration

Poor

Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay

Poor

Evidence of peer-review of others’ work

Satisfactory

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages

Clear delegation of tasks

Very Poor

Clearly labelled sections and subsections

Satisfactory

Contributions are all signed

Satisfactory

Civility. Your conduct is a key component of any collaboration, especially in the context of an online knowledge-building community. Please respect others, as well as observe the rules for civility on wiki projects. All contribs are moderated.

Satisfactory

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Emmamchristie:

Posts and comments on other people’s work, 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:

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

A well written, fairly well researched set of portfolio submissions. This work is at the upper end of this grade band, but even so perhaps a little improvement would go some way to attaining a higher mark. 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 criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets.

Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone some way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would make a difference, although what is evidenced here is really quite good.

Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good.

General:

Reading and research: evidence of critical engagement with set materials; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material – all good.

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 – all good.

Presentation: good use of wiki markup and organisational skills.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply