Marks

The marking criteria are as laid out in the project brief but I'll flesh them out a bit more here.

Each person's final mark is made up of a component for the group wiki and a component for the individual blogs. The split is 50:50.

Blogs

A good blog will have plenty of postings which reflect on what we've covered and your understanding of how it applies to what you've seen during your research. It will certainly have the "Good Vs Bad" exercise with a commentary on why each selection fits those criteria; "Anyone can see it's rubbish!" simply doesn't work - explain why a site is good and another is bad. At the end of the course you should also post a piece reflecting on the course as a whole. Consider what we've covered and what it means to you, look back through your blog to see whether you've changed your views or learnt something new. Also consider what you learnt from being part of a group and how the group dynamics worked out. You should also mention what you'd do differently, on this type of group project, next time.

Wikis

We've discussed the wikis at length so here I'll simply try to tie together what I'm expecting. The wiki should be a series of linked pages which discuss your area of study. This will be related to online identity or virtual communities or a combination of the two. Each wiki must have:

• An introduction explaining the area of study

• A page which details who worked on the project and a link to their blog - preferably with photos of group members or a group photo

• References to any resources quoted

   

Remember your audience - the wiki should be written in English rather than hyper-corrected "academicese". If you think that something supports Rheingold's then say that rather than trying to find longer words to make it look better. You're writing for your peers. Don't try to mangle something you've seen or found out to make it fit a theory - if it does that's fine but if it doesn't and you still think it worthy of inclusion then use it and say why. However you assemble the written work, individuals write their own or someone writes all of it, check for typos - nothing ruins credibility as much as something riddled with speling errors.

Use images on the wiki to break up the text and add colour - include details of where you took the image from if it's not one you've taken.

In closing....

Don't worry. The work I've seen so far is strong - the group wikis are looking good and most of the blogs are of a very high standard. If you aren't sure if that includes your blog then ask me.