Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2020/Conspiracy theory motivation

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Sub-heading suggestion[edit source]

Hi, really interesting topic you have chosen! I think it could be interesting to talk about what type of people are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories, maybe something about the different personality types if there is any research!--U3187486 (discusscontribs) 11:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 suggestion[edit source]

COVID-19 conspiracy theories could make a really good case study for this topic.---- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback[edit source]

This is a really interesting topic. Within the overview the sentence 'The parties responsible for such deceptions usually include groups with ill intentions or groups more powerful in nature.' seems to be very factual and i would suggest adding a reference here if you can. I would also suggest linking the conspiracy theories to other wikipedia pages. It might be interesting to assess the maintenance of conspiracy theories. For example how the social motives end up reinforcing members to continue to believe the theory.--U3187381 (discusscontribs) 10:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Heading casing[edit source]

Crystal Clear app ktip.svg
FYI, the convention on Wikiversity is for sentence casing. For example, the wikitext should be:

== Cats and mice ==

rather than

== Cats and Mice ==

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Topic development feedback[edit source]

The topic development has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Please also check the chapter's page history to check for editing changes made whilst reviewing the chapter plan. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Topic development marks are available via UCLearn. Note that marks are based on what was available before the due date, whereas the comments may also be based on all material available at time of providing this feedback.

Autoroute icone.svg

Title and sub-title[edit source]

  1. Excellent

User page[edit source]

  1. Excellent - used effectively
  2. Consider linking to your eportfolio page and/or any other professional online profile or resume such as LinkedIn. This is not required, but it can be useful to interlink your professional networks.

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. None summarised with link(s) to evidence.

Section headings[edit source]

  1. Basic, 2-level heading structure - could benefit from further development to expand on the target topic.
  2. Aim for 3 to 6 top-level headings between the Overview and Conclusion, with up to a similar number of sub-headings for large sections.

Key points[edit source]

  1. Promising content
  2. Overview - Consider adding:
    1. a description of the problem and what will be covered
    2. focus questions
    3. an image
    4. an example or case study
  3. Consider including more examples/case studies e.g., could be highlighted in feature boxes.
  4. Conclusion (the most important section):
    1. hasn't been developed
    2. what might the take-home, practical messages be?
    3. in a nutshell, what are the answer(s) to the question in the sub-title?

Image[edit source]

  1. Very good
  2. In the caption, explain how the image connects to key points being made in the main text.
  3. Cite each figure at least once in the main text.

References[edit source]

  1. OK
  2. For APA referencing style, check and correct:
    1. capitalisation
    2. italicisation

Resources[edit source]

  1. See also
    1. Use bullet-points
    2. Include source in brackets after link
    3. Also link to relevant book chapters
    4. Also link to relevant Wikipedia pages
  2. External links
    1. These links would be better presented in the main article or a feature box.
    2. Instead, link here to key resource sites about conspiracy theory motivation.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion for a few ideas to be covered[edit source]

I did a few edits of your 'what is a conspiracy' section, I hope that's ok. I think you could discuss some major conspiracy theories that stemmed from large events such as 9/11, the Kennedy assassination and walking on the moon and how even those these had simple easy explanations, such large conspiracy theories were born. Also how people respond to having a conspiracy theory that they believe in disproven. Good luck! --U3201178 (discuss contribs) 05:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Research article suggestion[edit source]

Looked up this article around conspiracy theory motivation around Covid-19, if anything I hope it will be interesting to you to read about your topic in a relevant way for the current time period. enjoy! --taramaland (discuss contribs) 09:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Chapter review and feedback[edit source]

This chapter has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Please also check the chapter's page history to check for editing changes made whilst reviewing through the chapter. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Chapter marks will be available later via UCLearn, along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Wikiuutiset logo typewriter.png

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is an insufficient chapter.
  2. This chapter is under the maximum word count.
  3. The Overview is underdeveloped. Consider:
    1. Explaining the problem or phenomenon in more detail.
    2. Presenting an illustrative case study to help engage reader interest.
    3. Developing focus questions to help guide the reader and structure the chapter.
  4. This chapter makes insufficient use of primary, peer-reviewed sources as citations.
  5. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Overall, this chapter makes insufficient use of theory mainly because it lacks sufficient linkage to, and citation of, the best available psychological theory about the topic.
  2. The detailed detour into schizotypy diagnosis is unnecessary.

Research[edit source]

  1. Overall, this chapter makes insufficient use of research.
  2. Many claims are unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags). There is a kind of irony that a chapter about conspiracy theories is lacking sufficient citation.
  3. When describing important research findings, consider including a bit more detail about the methodology and indicating the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship.
  4. Greater emphasis on major reviews and/or meta-analyses would be helpful.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Overall, the quality of written expression is below professional standard. UC Study Skills assistance is recommended to help improve writing skills to a professional standard.
    2. "People" is often a better term than "individuals"; similarly "participants" is preferred to "subjects".
    3. Avoid one sentence paragraphs. A paragraph should typically consist of three to five sentences.
    4. Avoid directional referencing (e.g., "As previously mentioned"). Instead:
      1. It is most often not needed at all, or
      2. use section linking.
  2. Layout
    1. See earlier comments about heading casing.
    2. Sections which include sub-sections should also include an introductory paragraph (which doesn't need a separate heading) before branching into the sub-headings.
    3. There are some dot points that may have been intended as headings - if so, use the default wiki heading styles.
  3. Learning features
    1. Minimal use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia articles. Adding more interwiki links for the first mention of key words and technical concepts would make the text more interactive. See example.
    2. No use of embedded in-text links to related book chapters. Embedding in-text links to related book chapters helps to integrate this chapter into the broader book project.
    3. Use in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters.
    4. Basic use of image(s). Figure 2 has been removed probably due to a lack of appropriate copyright information.
    5. No use of table(s).
    6. No use of feature box(es).
    7. No use of quiz(zes).
  4. Grammar
    1. The grammar for many sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags).
    2. Check and make correct use of commas.
    3. Use serial commas[1] - it is part of APA style and generally recommended by grammaticists. Here's a 1 min. explanatory video.
    4. Check and correct use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs individuals').[2].
    5. Check and correct use of affect vs. effect.
    6. Abbreviations
      1. Once an abbreviation is established (e.g., US), use it consistently. Don't set up an abbreviation and then not use it or only use it sometimes.
  5. Spelling
    1. Spelling can be improved (e.g., see the [spelling?] tags).
  6. Proofreading
    1. More proofreading is needed to fix typos and bring the quality of written expression closer to a professional standard.
  7. APA style
    1. Use double (not single) quotation marks "to introduce a word or phrase used as an ironic comment, as slang, or as an invented or coined expression; use quotation marks only for the first occurrence of the word or phrase, not for subsequent occurrences" (APA 7th ed., 2020, p. 159).
    2. Figures and tables
      1. Provide more detailed Figure captions to help connect the figure to the text.
      2. Refer to each Table and Figure at least once within the main text (e.g., see Figure 1).
    3. Citations are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. Check and correct use of full-stops.
      2. Do not include author initials.
      3. The year is missing from some citations.
      4. If there are three or more authors, cite the first author followed by et al., then year. For example, either:
        1. in-text, Smith et al. (2020), or
        2. in parentheses (Smith et al., 2020)
      5. Use ampersand (&) inside brackets and "and" outside brackets.
    4. References are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. Check and correct use of capitalisation.
      2. Check and correct use of italicisation.

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. ~6 logged, last minute, social contributions with direct links to evidence.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Multimedia feedback

The accompanying multimedia presentation has been marked according to the marking criteria. Marks are available via the unit's UCLearn site. Written feedback is provided below, plus see the general feedback page. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below. If you would like further clarification about the marking or feedback, contact the unit convener.


Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is an excellent presentation.
  2. This presentation makes creative and effective use of simple tools.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. An appropriate amount of content is presented - not too much or too little.
  2. The presentation is well structured.
  3. Add and narrate a Title slide, to help the viewer understanding the focus and goal of the presentation.
  4. The presentation makes good use of theory.
  5. The presentation makes basicuse of research.
  6. The presentation makes excellent use of one or more examples or case studies.
  7. A Conclusion slide is presented with a take-home message(s).

Communication[edit source]

  1. The presentation is fun, easy to follow, and interesting to watch and listen to.
  2. The presentation makes effective use of video.
  3. Well paced. Excellent pauses between sentences. This helps the viewer to cognitively digest the information that has just been presented before moving on to the next point.
  4. Excellent intonation to enhance listener interest and engagement.
  5. The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read.
  6. The visual communication is effectively supplemented by video.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. The video is very well produced.
  2. The wording and/or formatting/grammar of the title/sub-title is inconsistent between the name of the video, the opening slide, and/or the book chapter.
  3. Audio recording quality was excellent.
  4. Visual display quality was excellent.
  5. Image sources are provided.
  6. This presentation has probably violated the copyrights of image owners as images appear to have been used without permission and/or acknowledgement.
  7. A copyright license for the presentation is provided in the video description but not in the meta-data.
  8. A link to the book chapter is provided.
  9. A link from the book chapter is provided.
  10. A written description of the presentation is provided.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions[edit source]

Hi there, I believe that chapter would benefit from an interactive learning feature. I think this would engage the audience more. I think this chapter would also benefit from a feature box at the top of the page for focus questions. This will allow your views to quickly find the important information the chapter will hold. U3185242 (discusscontribs) 15:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)