A blogged review of "Social Media, Viral Marketing, and Crowdsourcing."

I reviewed a wiki of "Social Media, Viral Marketing, and Crowdsourcing".

The wiki was built up on Wikiversity platform, and the contributors were four students. The users had collaborated on one page, and provided a clear, neat table of contents. It was clearly understandable who contributed to which part.

Norbert Kaareste analysed today's social media. He had started from history of every aspect and the definitions were clear, although I would have wanted to read more about the topic in the wiki itself, not from additional resources. Norbert ended up with the future of social media. References were provided as links, and I could not understand why there was a set of links before references and then came the references. All in all I had a good impression on the topic. Norbert had a lot of personal input in the post.

Maris Üksti discussed viral marketing by citing various sources. She started from the history, giving examples and listing elements, then moving on to conclusion. I figured out what is viral marketing by the post, so I had a good impression of the content. References were again links, with reference section in the end. A mixture of linked words and links were presented in the text.  Maris had concluded the text nicely with her own words.

Indrek Saar wrote about crowdsourcing, and had a bit different structure from the rest of the participants. He had linked the words, and given links in the end (resources). Again the topic was clearly presented (some language mistakes prevented understanding minor sentences, which did not affect the whole meaning), and I got some new knowledge. Indrek had provided a lot of examples which helped understand the topic.

All the three inputs were similarly structured, so that it was clear that groupwork had been done. I was actually wondering what would the fourth person, Marek Mühlberg, write, and the answer was - a conclusion. What first struck my eye were the references, which were the most neatly presented. Inside the text, though, again I saw linked words and the url-s. He had interpreted all the three concepts a bit differently than they were initially presented, and had made a short analysis of the three. I think that it was good that the conclusion was presented differently, otherwise it would not have made sense.

I think that the blog lacked only minor co-operational factors, but otherwise it was readable and understandable: And what is most important, I got new knowledge out of it.