Robert+Mazur

Analysis and Reflection
October 5th: Worked on the Ergonomics page - added main information and fixed up the errors October 14th: Made my Analysis and Reflection page October 18th: Added name to Alias page October 29th: Removed plagiarized material from the Online Gambling site - site was used from CCT205, which included a post done by myself - removed my material from the page. October 29th: Added beginning reflection to my Analysis and Reflection page November 13th: Added a message about Remembrance Day to the home page November 13th: Added middle reflection to my Analysis and Reflection page Decemeber 8th: Addes final reflection to my Analysis and Reflection page


 * Beginning Reflection:**

This collaborative learning environment is definitely an environment in its early stages. There are lots of good things about this type of environment like how it can be used as a message board. However, with each positive, there is a negative to go along with it, such as how towards to end of this environment it becomes more bothersome than educational. This is my third wiki and my second of this semester. Between the two wikis this semester keeping up with them is almost a full time job. The one disadvantage to this assignment is that it penalizes you for leaving things to the last minute. Unlike an essay where the fact that you have to stay up all night to finish is punishment enough, with the wiki you are expected to keep up with it and edit throughout. However, for many, that may prove to be a problem.

My expectations are to try and keep up with the wiki. My first wiki experience, last year, I did not keep up with it at all and I am sure that was reflected in my mark. One of my pet peeves about is type of environment is there is too much freedom. When I make a post I tend to look it over a few times, to make sure that the information is correct, or at least on the right track. I usually talk it over with a classmate before posting, this way I have already gone through one check of accuracy before posting. I find that there are a few people that just type and post without really thinking what they are writing about, but again, due to the ongoing marks, they make the posts to show that they are keeping up with the assignment, and in turn it lowers the quality of the site. I am not saying that my posts are perfect, because they are far from that, however, what I feel I bring to the table is information that is correct or a variation of the truth.


 * Middle Reflection:**

I check the wiki at least once a day, not to saw I add something everyday, but I do go on to check it out. It is a good way to kill some extra time. My first thing that I go to is the “recent changes” menu. I like to see what people have added. That is usually where I choose which posting I contribute to. I will check to see what others have done, if no topic jumps out at me, or interests me, I will just go on to something else. However, if there was a topic that looks interesting and is something that I know about or have heard about I will go to the page to see what was done. This was how I did ergonomics page. The topic seemed interesting so I went to see what the page had to offer. However, once I got to the page, I was less interested because of the lack of context and out right wrong example.

My thoughts on adding, editing or re-arranging are as follows: if you have something good to add, then add it. However, too many people add little things that really do not warrant an edit. In the case of my ergonomics page, the example that I read was just wrong. It was a good example, but not for ergonomics, therefore I wrote out two examples of ergonomics and added to the definition. It took me a while to decide whether or not to delete it, for my work (the work that is replacing it) is usually of no better quality, however what made the exception in this case was the falseness of the example.

Unless someone has made an edit on my page, and it is shown on the “recent changes” menu, I will not go back to look at it. I know people have added to my pages, pictures and such, other points they had to add, and I don’t mind at all. Could the page have done without a picture, probably, was it a key edit, probably not, but it makes the page look nice and the more edits you have the better mark you get, so that’s why it you get these types of edits.


 * Final Reflection:**

I just finished writting a good "final reflection for CCT300" so I'm not too sure if this one will be as good. So feel free keep in mind that reflection when marking this. The main issue that I wanted to bring forth is the involvement. It was said that CCT205 last year did really well, it being the first wiki experience, and got over or close to 8000 edits. With just a little over 6 hours remaining for this assignment there are 3343, which is actually less than CCT300. So whether there will be over 4000 edits to come or not, only time will tell and I may be eating my words later, but maybe it is time to put the wiki to rest. It has come and gone, just like technologies come and go, this assignment does not seem to be getting the attention it once did. Everything was not built to last, take the Betamax for example.

On a more positive note, probably the first time in all three reflections ( at leaset I try to give reasons why I am not a fan of the wiki), I did like how the final assingment used the wiki as a presentation function. We did not have to hand in our proposals or intermediate work to you in class, we could just post it on the wiki and that was fine. I like that idea and I think the "tree huggers" like it as well, but it just seems to make more sense. So I like the wiki for that sort of application.

Overall, I have nothing else to say, both classes were good, I prefered the final assignments over the wiki assignments in both classes, this one and CCT300. It was something where one would show off their creativity a little more.

I hope you guys have a great holiday.

Rob, signing off for the last time!