Why I was jibbed. A rant by LG.

Today nothing much happened although it has been an enjoyable day. I was late to uni and happy for it. When I entered in the lecture theatre I was stared at and my thongs were sqeaking and I was so embarrassed. I mumbled an apology and squeaked my way up to my usual seat. Anyway, I don't know where all my new found brain power has come from today cos I am as tired as the bubble skirt/dress fashion that is apparently gracing our streets this summer. Anyway, I am on fire with all kinds of ideas about how to present a business case on the record keeping requirements of the National Film and Sound Archive. I know how to disseminate information so it is easily understood, and I can present arguments with the clarity and poise that the mighty Steve Bracks has in overabundance (with all the clarity of a bullshit artist though - meh - he's a pollie), and I can type a million miles a second. The ginseng? Probably the chai latte I made for myself earlier. Caffiene is so good for you. Anyway, I want to share the essay rant I promised earlier and in doing so I will be able to build the arguement I am going to present to my lecturer as to why I was jibbed.
So, the essay question.

An article by Orlikowski is provided with this assignment, appended as a pdf file. It is W.J. Orlikowski (1999), ‘Technologies-in-practice: an enacted lens for studying technology in organisations’, February 1999, Cambridge, MA, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This can be downloaded from: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/2742 .

Tasks for this assignment.

Describe how the author of the article makes use of Giddens’ Structuration Theory.

Describe how Orlikowski’s analysis of the role of technologies in organizations can be related to the ICM. (the ICM is a theoretical model describing the role, capabilites and power of information across space and time - yeah dig it)

NOTE 1: The assignment is 1000 words long (a freaking diaboloical nightmare - who says a discussion of theory can fit into 1000 words?) and must include at least 10 references.

NOTE 2: In case some you who don't know, this is a Masters level assignment, in which there are (obviously) expectations in research skills, critical thinking, and language.

Recently I saw a doc on the uni student intranet which said EXEMPLAR Assignment 2. Now an exemplar is not just an example of good work, it is a MODEL OF EXCELLENCE, such a true and accurate record that it can be used as a master of the work - something which represents 100%

I read this exemplar and my blood started to boil. Here are the reasons why:

1. Secondary references were used to describe and explain the theoretical underpinnings of Structuration when primary sources were available. Why would you use someone else's words to describe what you can get from reading the source material?
   
2. Some key ideas were not referenced at all. As far as I am aware this is called plagiarism. ie: no ref on this sentence:This view of technologies in organizations, underpinned by GST is what Orlikowski terms technologies-in-practice.

3. Clumsy language skills: ie: Orlikowski’s analysis of the role of technologies in organizations, relates to the ICM in a number of ways, some of which will now be discussed.
4. My pet hate =referencing Wikipedia. How can a Masters student reference Wikipedia? And the reference is about the author of the work. So someone else has formed an opinion and our exemplar author has written it down. This was incorrectly referenced as well.
   
5. To make matters worse this exemplar author used ANSWERS.COM to reference Structuration Theory. Now, secondary references are one thing, but internet resources that pull references from anywhere that is barely authoritative is criminal. And to top it all off - this reference is in fact a this website referencing the Structuration article on Wikipedia! Don't get me wrong, I love Wikipedia, its just not a reference that is reliable - particularly in this context. Lastly, this is how answers.com defines itself: a super-reference work that includes an encyclopedia, dictionary, almanac, thesaurus, weather report, conversion table, archive, game center, investment guide, currency converter, newscenter and shopping catalog — and more. (http://www.answers.com/topic/encyclodictionalmanacapedia)
6. Incorrect capitalisation: Orlikowski’s technology-in-practice reflected Normative functions within organizations.
7. Some american spellings thrown in with australian english spellings.
8. The exemplar author references lecture notes! Which is then innaccurately referenced. Now if this was an informal essay that is posted on a discussion list and says that referencing lecture notes is expected, then that would be fine. BUT IT IS NOT.
   
9. I was pulled up on not going in depth with the organisations that Orlikowski describes in the article. I questioned the comment by my marker (there are two markers) and said that I answered the question asked. His reply was to say that indeed I did and I prob could not have done what he said in the word limit anyway. Well then WHAT THE FUCK WAS THE POINT OF WRITING THE COMMENT? Why mark me down for something I could not have done better? The exemplar author does not even mention how many organisations Orlikowski studied, nor how she organised what her theoretical findings were and what they meant. A discussion did exist, but it was so general that it could have been about any author who researches technology (ok maybe a bit of a harsh criticism - but I write 3 paras about it,saying what the orgs were called, and how O organised her findings and what that all meant in relation to information sharing as a whole and I get criticized!)
   
10. I was also questioned as to my referencing ability. When I questioned my marker about it and told him what I had wrote, he said that it was fine of course and he was just making sure i knew what I was doing. Of course i knew what I was doing. So what the FUCK was he doing?
11. We were told to use the MIMS style guide - which exemplar author obviously did not read. I however got penalised for not writing op cit or what ever you write in APA referencing which I still do not know and simply rewrite the entire () again.
    
12. How can this be an exemplar if it is filled with problems and sloppiness and poor standards?
13. How can I possibly complain about my mark when i got an excellent mark,despite lame comments that were not even explained very well?
14. If this is the standard for essays then why did i bother with trying to make mine so great?
15. Last but not least, lets compare final, summative sentences. I know I have slipped right down into barrel scraping and pettiness, but FOR FUCK, I was JIBBED and I am tired. I prob need a comma or two in mine - i have been told by a great authority I have an problem with it.
    So here is exemplar author's:

    Technologies-in-practice is a term incorporating changes occurring across time and space, which recognises human knowledge and action as a dynamic influence in this process.

    
    And here is mine:

Orlikowski's paper demands a new memory of the perception of technology be made across all actions, from individual to societal and contributes to the emerging thought on
the role technology can play in the challenging of traditional modes of power and collective intelligence. (Levy 2001)

Any comments on what I should do? Am I being a snob? Am I being unreasonable? You know that the more marks I get on my written work, the less I need on my exam. I hate exams and I always do shit in exams. Two marks here would mean two less marks on an exam worth 55% of my semester grade.