Talk:Digital Media and Culture Yearbook 2014/Chapter 2: Online Identity

I thought it would be best to open this discussion page since there's more than one group working on the project! This way we can all work together! Liisamy (discuss • contribs) 13:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. So I was just talking to my group and for some reason we didn't quite realise that there will be LOADS of groups working on the same topic and people have actually started writing stuff. We thought it would only be fair if we did this in a structured way, so dividing the whole topic "online identity" between all of us so no one ends up being left out. Ok? As other people have already started working on the intro, theories and important characters we thought about picking the whole social media aspect in relation to online identity (because that seems like something that hasn't been addressed directly yet)- mainly focusing on the development of online identities (user names, avatars and actual profiles, anonymity etc) and associated privacy issues, security settings and so on. Would that be ok with you guys?! Just making sure that we're all happy here and get a fair share of contribution. Please give feedback as soon as possible as we want to start writing! (-Team TenaciousD) --BerlinLea (discuss • contribs) 13:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and to get the ball rolling, I'm thinking of looking at the security side of things. Which means I'll be looking at information online, how secure/insecure our online profiles and interactions are, how this has changed over time etc. Any problems or questions just contact me! Stirmartin12 (discuss • contribs) 13:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah well as I was speaking for the whole group that section should be saved for you, Martin. Just need the overall permission of other groups. Or we could just be very authoritarian here and say that section is ours, end of discussion. ;) --BerlinLea (discuss • contribs) 14:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I was thinking of making a start on the issues surrounding impression management. ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 10:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This all sounds good to me, I think I shall have a look at profile pictures and the connections they have in connection with persona and impression management. Do people think its a topic worth talking about on its own, or perhaps a subtitle to impression management? RedGebsKasia (discuss • contribs) 11:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I would maybe say within impression management. However, once it is on the page and would look better as a separate section we could always edit it? ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 11:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That all sounds fine by me! I was thinking about doing a bit about how the development of social media sites has effected on how online identities are created. Liisamy (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thats true, we can always change it towards the end if we think it will look better another way. I think persona was also an interesting topic covered in the lecture which could be relevant in the wikibook, for example the idea of wearing a mask as being similar to our online identities. I believe it was C.G. Jung that spoke about this, so maybe he is a theorist we'd like to consider as well. RedGebsKasia (discuss • contribs) 16:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm currently looking into personalised adverts, so how online advertisement is changing due to companies gathering and using personal user information from e.g. social networks like facebook. BerlinLea (discuss • contribs) 20:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to let people know, I'm working on a section on blending online and offline identities. It would be handy for everyone working on the Online Identity chapter to put a wee note in this discussion so that every person knows which areas are being covered. BobblehatImara (discuss • contribs) 18:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

RedGebsKasia, I am late too this as I have been so busy and have just realised that you are doing profile pictures. I may have added a small amount of text to that section without checking here first, sorry! There are so groups making it difficult to choose a certain theme. I am going to try and gather information on the risks of online identity, discussing bullying, paedophilia etc as oppose to genuine security and fraud issues. Does anyone have any objections? Debsi91 (discuss • contribs) 16:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC) No worries at all! We can all add to any sections if we have something to add anyway! That sounds like a good idea to me! RedGebsKasia (discuss • contribs) 17:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey there, I just wanted to check what everyone's attitude is towards editing or adding to what other groups have written about? My group are still in the process of doing research, so we haven't got round to posting our stuff up. When we do, there will probably be some overlap with what the rest of you have written. Would you like us to ask here before we add stuff to or edit other people's sections, should we just crack on with it or should we try to just create our own little subheadings? Just thought I better check in case we inadvertently start causing chaos! SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 20:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

RE SilentJamie Regarding editing, I think it's inevitable that we'll step on each other's toes a little with there being so many individuals working on the topic. I'm totally comfortable with people editting anything I write and, so far, the team members I have conferred with are also comfortable with it. (Perhaps it is worth leaving a note that one has edited on the discussion page.) Kriscampbell91 (discuss • contribs) 11:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

RE Kriscampbell91 That's grand! I can't see anyone having to do any major edits because the work that's been done so far looks great, but I might add a few paragraphs to some of the sections at some point. Still, I'll make sure my group is aware that we should leave a little note here if we're going to do any editing. SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 12:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys, im a bit late to the game here, my laptops been in the shop all week, i was supposed to get it back tuesday but no such luck. The section I decided to work on was interlinking your web use with your social media. However, i'm starting to think this subject could be quite limited so if anyone has any suggestions as to directions i could that would be a big help. Im already looking at how it hinders your anonymity online so whoever is doing anonymity has covered anything concerning this help would be welcome EuanWhitelaw (discuss • contribs) 15:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: SilentJamie and editing you may want to think about looking to see who’s work you are editing before you edit it and then leave them a note on their discussion page telling then why you thought best to edit it, ie. Spelling mistakes, wrong or misleading information, that sort of stuff. SmithBiancaAnn (discuss • contribs) 22:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: EuanWhitelaw I don’t think you should worry about the section being limited as online identity follow many different routes and then branch off even feather from then on. Your best bet if you are worried about the overlap in information is too try and source things that no one else would have looked at, i.e., perhaps look at some key reading for simple concepts but to follow up names of references in those book to gain knowledge and research that no one else has yet to look into. But if you’re wanting to look into anonymous/anonymity then perhaps you could look into online gaming alongside RedGebsKasia as online gaming is a platform for shielding ones true identity, especially if you look at reality games such as Second Life or IMVU, which I am sure you will have seen advertised at some point online. For these avatar creating is necessary, potentially re-designing yourself and concealing ones identity. SmithBiancaAnn (discuss • contribs) 22:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: EuanWhitelaw  If you are struggling on deciding what to wright on online identity, here are some of the most interested topics to wright about on online identity, the development of identity, security, impression management, gaming and the blending of online to offline identities.

I will be discussing online identity using theorists that are well established in the psychology sector as they offer many incites to how online and offline interactions have impact one ones identity and identity of self. I will also hopefully also be talking about this in relation to the ‘project of self’ which is a theoretical theory of how a person gradually builds up their identity, this can also relate to J Lacan’s Mirror Theory which I am sure many of you may wish to refer to or wright about. SmithBiancaAnn (discuss • contribs) 22:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: BerlinLea and Advertising you may wish to look into how Huru, which is an online TV streaming sight that allows to you watch TV episodes at any time, allows you to choose which ad’s are relevant to you. SmithBiancaAnn (discuss • contribs) 22:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: SmithBiancaAnn Thanks for the suggestion! I will definitely give it a look and see if I can include this as some kind of case study. However, I think we should all try to narrow down our focus as much as possible as there are so many people involved in this project and it would be a shame if there was a lot of energy wasted on something that someone else is already covering... Of course once we've got our texts posted we should read over each others' stuff and add more information/ material etc wherever it's needed. Concerning your suggestions for Euan- these are really the most popular fields relating to online identity and are already being covered by people in our group (and probably others as well). So I think if you're still happy to focus on interlinks between websites and social media, Euan, you should give it a try and see how much you can find on it. If not there is loads of other stuff that can be considered. Remember- it's not about quantity but quality! :) BerlinLea (discuss • contribs) 08:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to briefly touch upon Lanier's views of social network sites compared to homepages of the 1990's and how he feels that SNSs are not allowing people to express their identites and creativity. I am unsure where this would fit however; does anyone have any suggestions? In the Main theorists section? Or in the social media sites section? ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 16:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: ButtonsElizabeth I think that maybe it would go better in the social media section if you are just briefly touching on something? I think if it were in the main theorist section that would require a greater body of working other than this topic of SNS. Otherwise, I think his work is a really good point to bring up! RedGebsKasia (discuss • contribs) 15:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Kasia. I put it in Theorists last night but now I am not sure. What do you think? Do you think that it fits in that section or should I move it? ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 16:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

catfish Hi guys, I've been having a look online for some different material to add to the page and I've been doing a lot of reading about Catfish and I was wondering what people thought about adding an entire sub-heading for it or if it would seem better for me to just add the text below anonymity. I also noticed that "catfish" was in the glossary but I couldn't see any text on the page about it, so I wasn't sure how relevant it would seem unless we used the word in context? Let me know what you think! Megan4pmGlasses (discuss • contribs) 11:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

RE Catfish I actually had Catfish in mind as I was reading around disembodiment and multiplicity! I think it would be a great modern and current representation of the theories we are exploring! You could explore the term Catfish and perhaps go on to explore the ways in which play with their identity exemplified in the documentary and in the TV show! I am looking at extending the multiplicity section a little, so adding to this idea is perfect timing! Kriscampbell91 (discuss • contribs) 12:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys! I wasn't sure where to write this on the page but I just wanted to let people know that in reference to groups using this page for their own discussions (Team Axe and Team Straight Outta Compston (excellent!)), you may want to create a group page and hold your discussion re. presentations etc. on there so that you don't have to be scrolling through all of this every time you want to make a suggestion to your group. We (group Tenacious D) have been doing this and it's been working really well. BobblehatImara (discuss • contribs) 18:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys, I've posted my piece on youtube on my discussion page, if anyone wants to proof read that form me it would be much apreciated, im also struggling to wrap my ehad around the referencing system, and trying to find a place on the page to put my bit. should i just put it at the bottom or should i put it near the socail networking section as thtas the category it falls under. Help would be apreciated ASAP! EuanWhitelaw (discuss • contribs) 13:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Gaming
I was thinking of some more ideas for the main body of our wiki, and was wondering about the gaming culture as being a kind on online identity? I'm not greatly familiar with gaming, so I was wondering on people's thoughts of gaming acting as an online identity in the virtual world, for example The Sims. Or could any game be considered an online identity? RedGebsKasia (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: Gaming for RedGebsKasia, not all games are online so I wouldn't say all of them are online identities. From my own experience the best thing to look at if you're looking for online identity is MMORPGs - for example World of Warcraft or EVE Online - they're places where people truly establish secondary identities. Of course Second Life is about as extreme an example as you can get of online vs offline identity if you want to go that route. Hopefully that helps :). Stirmartin12 (discuss • contribs) 18:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: RedGebsKasia, In terms of referring to the online gaming identities, I would say that it is a brilliant thing to talk about as it is no secret that people often gender swap on these online games such as WOW aka world of warcraft, and this obviously reflects some of the major ideas talked about by online identity theorists, this idea that the choice of identity swapping is so easy and the idea that we can dibble and dabble in it if we so wish. Of course this in terms of gaming can in turn spill over into our real life. Here it would be perfect to talk about Second Life as there has been many reports of instances in which individual, who spend all of their time in this virtual reality, lose track of what is and is not considered to be appropriate in actual physical society. However, I would suggest that you steer clear of defining Second Life as an online game as it is more of a virtual reality. One of the cases I can think of the top of my head is how a middle aged male went into a supermarket dressed in nothing other than an extremely large nappy, this occurred as he blurred the boundaries between virtual and actual reality. In Second Life it was his fetish to be a baby and so his avatar of course was a baby, and too much time spent on this virtual site had lead him to forget perhaps that in fact he actually was not a baby. I am aware that there are plenty of other similar cases out their regarding the blurring of boundaries from online to off. You may also wish to talk about how people become to blur the boundaries in the first place, for example it was obvious that this person has some incessant need or longing to be seen as a baby and essential Second Life only offered him a way to be this, arguably he may have always wanted to be seen as a baby. Therefor it could also be argues that online just offers us an extension of our selves. So you may wish to also look at it that way. SmithBiancaAnn (discuss • contribs) 20:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: Gaming: these all seem like great ideas! Looking into gaming seems like a good idea, perhaps there is someway we can divide this topic up since there seems to be others who know more about minecraft, whereas I'm less aware of what it is as i've never played it? I'll look into the idea of having a secondary life, and also the blurring of reality and online identities, as it seems like a really interesting point of discussion! RedGebsKasia (discuss • contribs) 12:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: Gamaing: this seems like a pretty solid section and think it links well together with belonging section as many people who use these games are escaping the real world to enter an online community where they can meet like minded people and achieve that feeling of belonging. If that's something you are interested in looking at. I also just noticed that one of Van Koten's main research questions is; What are the main forces at work in the production & consumption of digital representation? and get had suggested this means; what makes digital media so popular? So you could look at it from the perspective of the online identity you adpot in these games, this is what draws people in. Clairepporter (discuss • contribs) 16:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Clairepporter (discuss • contribs) 16:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I also found an interesting thesis paper that explores various topics within online identity but has a particularly interesting section on gaming and player involvement that may be useful to you it's called; Selling Your Self: Online Identity in the Age of a Commodified Internet, by Marwick, A.E.(2005)You can find the whole thing online. Clairepporter (discuss • contribs) 16:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much, these will be really helpful! As you have said, it can be quite difficult to find material on such recent topics that aren't theoretical, however this will really help! RedGebsKasia (discuss • contribs) 15:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It may be good to look at the huge rise in Player vs Player gaming, and how their online identity of playing the game transcends that of offline identities such as gender, race, political viewpoint and so on. It, potentially, can often reduce or challenge the pre-existing ideas or stereotypes they have of that identity. Jack.oldfield (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a really good point! I may add something about this in and then if you feel like adding anything too it then you may feel free RedGebsKasia (discuss • contribs) 14:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Anonymity
At the end of the impression management section I think we need to address whether or not it is deception and a negative thing. Do you think that would then lead on well to the issue of anonymity? ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 17:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: Anonymity for ButtonsElizabeth. -- I understand you've taken on Impression Management and have its material covered. I also see you have posted a question about linking it onto anonymity. I'm not sure it's a seamless link insofar that impression management seems to entail [for the most part] a balance of sharing, withholding, and distorting information instead of being totally negative. Written the right way it could flow into anonymity really well though! I have also already starting drafting some ideas for anonymity (particularly the dishinibition effect and trolling online) so perhaps we could converse and work to have our sections flow into one another. You can message me on my discussion page? Kriscampbell91 (discuss • contribs) 12:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I am also going to point out the disembodiment effect - how the idea of agency outwith the physical realm of our bodies is what differentiates online activity and online behaviour from our own behaviour in real life. This, I will lead into anonymity and the disinhibition effect. The idea of losing oneself in one's online behaviour without one's body to be held accountable. I will also touch on multiplicity - the idea of taking on various online identities within the disembodied state! I am disembodied writing this, right now! Kriscampbell91 (discuss • contribs) 12:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you mind if I add a bit to this section? I was going to bring up the fact that our online identities can be used for deception, but conclude with the fact that it is actually only a minority that use it as a negative outlet; many use anonymity in a constructive and progressive way. If you have already started to cover this no worries. ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 10:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, guys! I was thinking today that we haven't really talked about anonymous bulling that happens online. For example when people create fake online identities to harass people they know in real life and sometimes that can have really terrible consequences like suicides. And also that sometimes people create online identities just for 'trolling'. I think that's something to write about, but I'm not sure. What do you guys think? Liisamy (discuss • contribs) 14:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea that has lots of potential, and you have linked it well to online identity, so good shout. ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 16:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree Liisa! That's definitely something we should consider. I'd actually be able to provide some case studies I think as I had to do loads of research on cyberbullying for a psychology internship. BerlinLea (discuss • contribs) 12:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a great run in after disinhibition effect? Could be a good flow... I'm working on posting disinhibition now!!! Kriscampbell91 (discuss • contribs) 12:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I just added something as 'Cyberbullying' but it's pretty basic stuff, so you guys can add more to it if you want to! Like Lea, if you want to add an example from a case study? Liisamy (discuss • contribs) 14:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I'll try to do that once I got the text on advertising done. BerlinLea (discuss • contribs) 15:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if I could write something in Anonymity about how online chat rooms can make people feel more confident and open because they don't have to face a person? Caroline Malcolm (discuss • contribs) 16:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a really good idea, Caroline. The anonymity changes the way they present themselves, so their identity is different online then it would be in reality. Liisamy (discuss • contribs) 16:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I hope that it is okay that I added a statistic/quote about Koreans and how anonymity has affected their sense of blurred identities into the Dissociative Imagination section. I thought it fit quite well and was a good stat to get in. I was wondering if I could also contribute a Lanier quote about the 'fad of anonymity' and a Baym quote into the Solipsistic Introjection section? ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

RE: Cyberbullying Just added a case study to the cyberbullying bit. It's kind of an intersection between cyberbullying and catfishing actually, but I still put it under the cyberbullying heading. Hope that's ok.

RE Casestudy Hi, it looks great! It's a good idea to have an example of what cyberbullying can actually lead to Liisamy (discuss • contribs) 15:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Referencing
I would like to ask what everyone is thinking about referencing, I've noticed there haven't been any made yet within the references section. A lot of my content so far is from academic reading and I wish to reference it. Does anybody know the guidelines as to how to do it? Peace! Kriscampbell91 (discuss • contribs) 14:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I asked the general world of wikibooks about referencing and a gentleman called Martin sent me a link on how to reference. If you go onto my UserTalk page you should be able to see what he sent me, and I think it is a big help. let me know if you can't find it. ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 14:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That's great! Thanks, I was discussing it with some of my group OFFLlNE so it's good that we all have access now! Kriscampbell91 (discuss • contribs) 15:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Great - you have Martin Poulter on side (this is good news, take his advice, he's one of the founding trustees of WMUK!) GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Well that's pretty awesome, well done Elizabeth! Stirmartin12 (discuss • contribs) 18:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, really didn't know where to start with refrencing at all! Clairepporter (discuss • contribs) 16:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding referencing, does everyone think that we should stick to the APA referencing style of the CMC division and our course? ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 20:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah i think that would be a good referencing system to use since we should be familiar with it! As long as we all use the same system so its consistent RedGebsKasia (discuss • contribs) 13:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC) I'm really struggling on how to use referencing, I used the link that was given on ButtonsElizabeth's page as i'm trying to reference Papacharissi in the 'Profile Picture section. I'm following the instruction but it is coming up as invalid… any ideas ? RedGebsKasia (discuss • contribs) 14:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

RE: RedGebsKasia What is the exact error message that you're getting? SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 17:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know what to do when we only have one reference for a large section of text that is split into several paragraphs? Should we just put in one reference at the end of the section or should we repeat the reference after each little paragraph? I'm not using any direct quotes so it seems a bit pointless to keep repeating the one reference. SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 17:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Jamie Do not quote me on this, but I would guess that in your situation one reference at the end would be okay, as long as your are referencing. If you have time you could maybe ask someone on Reading Rooms and see if you get a reply before end of play on Friday? ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 21:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Jamie I agree, it's better to ask, but as long as you have only one reference for one long section, I don't think it is necessary to reference it after every short paragraph. It should be enough to reference it once in the end of the section. --Rekarippel (discuss • contribs) 23:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys! I'll ask on the Reading Room just to be sure, but I'm sure that the one reference at the end of the section should be fine. SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 08:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Using the same reference for more than one paragraph - As I mentioned earlier, I asked on the Reading Room about whether we can just use one in-text citation in a section where there are separate paragraphs but only reference has been used. The answer came back that this is not the proper way to do it. Instead, separate citations should be used at the end of each paragraph to prevent confusion should a paragraph be moved during the editing process. Just thought I should let you all know as, like me, some of you thought that one citation would be enough. SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 12:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Jamie Thank you for finding it out!--Rekarippel (discuss • contribs) 19:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Guys, I've just added some references to the list and they seem to have come out ok. However, I am a bit concerned because I added them amongst the others already there and did it alphabetically. However, it looks to me as if the reference section is a bit messy and confused. Some people seem to be doing it alphabetically, and others are just adding their reference to the bottom of the pile. Do we have a plan of which way it is meant to be? Caroline Malcolm (discuss • contribs) 20:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think alphabetically will look more professional. ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 08:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Introduction
Thought I would start a new separate conversation for the introduction. I had made a start to it and was just briefly outlining some of the stuff I thought needed to and could be covered in later sub headings in the main concepts area. Obviously everything we could possibly cover is not there so here we can discuss what else needs to go in it and what needs to be removed and modified. And we can add parts to the intro as the main concepts section develops. ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 10:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Great - citations needed, however... GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Narrative
I am working on a bit about narrative and think it would fit quite well just after the main theorists section, as it makes reference to a lot of the topics that others are going to discuss later. I am going to put it in, and if it doesn't work and when aspects need changed we can discuss it here. Let me know what you think. ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 11:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea! The one thing I was wondering is whether it might be better to categorise your paragraph on narrative under the heading "Forms of Digital Representation"? That way, if someone is writing a paragraph on realism they could put it there as well since the two concepts are kind of related. SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 16:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I am more than happy to do that, good suggestion. I am going to put it up later tonight and please give me some feedback upon what you feel should be changed and added; I feel like I am struggling to expand it a bit. ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 10:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've just taken a look at what you've written and it looks good to me. Admittedly, I've not read much into the whole concept of Narrative so I'm probably not in the best position to help you expand on what you've written. Having said that, the one thing I can think of adding off the top of my head would be something about the psychological component of narratives. Quite a few slides from the lecture on Online Identity were given over to the discussion of this, so it would probably be a good idea to explore it in relation to Facebook posts and profile pictures which I noticed you only briefly mention. SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 20:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, can I add something into the narrative section? I was thinking about writing how different Facebook pages deal with narratives? Some people put on everything, but others are a lot more critical about what they post? In a sense it is an edited narrative? Also, I was thinking of writing something on how people can have false narratives on chat rooms or dating sites because they feel their lies are safe and they feel liberated being somebody new? Caroline Malcolm (discuss • contribs) 16:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea Caroline, especially as I was feeling that the section was looking a bit thin but have been struggling to pad it out. I like that you are approaching the negative side of the argument too. You could maybe even link it to the concept of realism, can we can put a definition of realism in the glossary. ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 19:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've added two sections to narrative and I can add a definition of realism to the glossary Caroline Malcolm (discuss • contribs) 20:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I recognise some material in this section from my lectures. It would be *really* nice (and, indeed it is a requirement and a convention of commons attribution - therefore ethical!) to cite the key thinkers used. In this case... me! GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs)

Blended Identities
Just thought I'd start this separate little conversation in case anyone else from another group was planning on writing a section about blended identities. It should be a relatively short section since as far as I can tell, there's not that much research on the subject, but if anyone wants to contribute feel free to let me know here! SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 16:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey there Jamie, I'm working on blended identities too. I've done a little research and constructed a paragraph, would you like to show me some of your work so that we can both make this a good, coherent section? Here's mine thus far: "When those who have only previously communicated online meet in a real world situation, this is referred to as 'blending identity', wherein the online and offline identities of a person merge. For example, in the case of online dating, the users first interact through the website's chat interface having approved of the other person's profile (their online identity). They then may decide to interact outside of the Internet in a different social context, which is when they meet each other's offline identities. Fandom is another instance in which the two identities merge, as a user will construct an online identity for pursuing an idol/celebrity then proceed to reveal their offline identity when they meet." So far, very basic. I'd like to perhaps include a proper definition of 'offline identity' and better link this to the lecture/seminar material. Any thoughts? BobblehatImara (discuss • contribs) 19:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Imara, I'm still in the process of doing research but I'll get it all written up and post it here as soon as possible so as you can have a look through it. A lot of what I've found relates to blended identity in online fan communities, so that should fit nicely on to the end of your paragraph. What you've written looks great so far! Are you planning on putting your definition of "offline identity" in the main article on blended identities or is that something that you think would be better getting added to the glossary section? Also, when you mention linking what you've written to the lecture/seminar material; are you talking about your definition of offline identity or your main paragraph on blended identities? SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 16:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, do you think we should be posting our work under the Forms of Digital Representation section or the Impression Management section? SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 18:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Jamie, I am wanting to write something about how people blend various online identities and in return, their natural identity becomes unclear and confused because they are displaying multiple personalities. Caroline Malcolm (discuss • contribs) 16:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Caroline, I've created a section for Blended Identities on the Wikibook so feel free to create a subsection for what you'd like to write about. SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 21:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like to add something to this section found a great book by Geerit Lovink that looks at celebrating multiple identities if that fine with everyone. Clairepporter (discuss • contribs) 12:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem! As I said to Caroline, I've created a section for Blended Identity on the Wikibook so feel free to create a sub-section within that and add what you've found in the Lovink book. SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 13:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've just contributed and I hope what I have written is ok. Caroline Malcolm (discuss • contribs) 15:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

What you've written seems grand to me. What does everyone else think? SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 17:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Everyone's written some really great stuff! I'd like to add in a section about blended identities in online dating, possibly using Tinder as an example. I hope this sounds alright! BobblehatImara (discuss • contribs) 20:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That sounds great to me. I look forward to reading it! SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 20:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I really like this section; I think it is really well researched. However, perhaps a couple of sentences about Lanier's view should be inserted somewhere, maybe linking in his analogy of the MIDI note, and whether people are becoming like them- overtly defined and restricted in practice to what is represented in a computer? ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 21:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Have written up a section on online dating for the page and posted it for approval, and am currently forming some add-on text regarding the use of Tinder. Great idea to try and link in Lanier, Elizabeth! This page is looking awesome, hopefully I can improve my section to be good as well, just wanted to get the basis down. BobblehatImara (discuss • contribs) 22:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm currently in the process of adding a few more bits and pieces to the text that I've already added to the Wikibook. I felt that I needed to add a bit more personal analysis to what I'd written. Hope nobody minds! SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 11:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

In the fan culture section do you think it would be possible to split it into smaller subheadings? I got advised to do that for the social network sites section as that was considerably longer than any other section, and it did make the whole thing look a bit better and fit in a bit more. ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 22:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. I agree that it needs to be split up into smaller subheadings. I'm just unsure as to what headings I'll use at the moment. SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 08:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Social Media Security
Hi everyone, I'm doing the security side of social media but during my research this topic very frequently ends up being tied to user privacy and online privacy. Is anyone else doing that side of things? If not, is it okay if I incorporate that into my side of things? :) Stirmartin12 (discuss • contribs) 18:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I was going to do a small section on online safety which I guess is linked to the security side of things that you're wanting to cover. Do you think we should create a sub-section on Security, Privacy and Safety Issues where we can both post our work? Also, to answer your original question; if I do cover issues of privacy, I'll be doing it in a way that relates to online safety rather than security. SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 00:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Jamie, I think we could definitely do a subsection on that yes, I will be concentrating on the social media side of things but we can either create a collaborative topic or write seperate parts of the online security thing under subsub headings, if you follow? Any thoughts or preferences? I'll keep hammering away at my bit for now and we can change things up as we go :) Stirmartin12 (discuss • contribs) 14:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I've added a section on Grindr to this because I found a few interesting articles about identity use on it, but please feel free to add other info to this section. Megan4pmGlasses (discuss • contribs) 21:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC) I'm only touching on the social media aspect, looking at it more of the perspective of how it encourages a sense of belonging and enables obsessive fan culuture. On the topic of social media secuirity I noticed in the class blog it was a quite common view that secuity varies from site to site maybe you could looking closer at the reasons for this if you're going anywhere near that angle.Clairepporter (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a good idea actually Claire, I'll do some research around that topic and see what I can add to my drafts so far. Thanks for the suggestion. Stirmartin12 (discuss • contribs) 13:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Just thought I'd leave a quick message to say that I've decided to scrap my idea of doing a section on online safety due to time constraints. I don't think writing about it will necessarily add anything to the Wikibook which hasn't been touched upon by other people writing in other sections. Having said that, if anyone feels like taking over and writing about it then go ahead! SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 18:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries Jamie. I'll at least be trying to touch upon online security in some way as it's directly related to my topic so it'll be in there in some form, and if this books gets edited by other wikipedians I'm sure they'll expand on it too. Stirmartin12 (discuss • contribs) 22:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Clairepporter I agree that we should maybe focus on individual social media networks and refer to their privacy policies to see how each one differs. I've done this for dating apps such as Tinder, but I feel that this would be really interesting to do both facebook and twitter. Megan4pmGlasses (discuss • contribs) 07:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Belonging
I'm definitely interested in looking into the fan culture side of belonging. Perhaps looking at some of the more serious cases and seeing if there has been any particular academic studies on this area.Clairepporter (discuss • contribs) 15:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Fan culture does seem like a very relevant and influencial aspect of online belonging. I am wanting to look at the concept of online social identities as being part of a performance art, along with a need to proove yourself to others through what you post online. Caroline Malcolm (discuss • contribs) 16:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This sounds good so far. I have been looking into how blogging is one of the ways in which users can achieve a sense of belonging. I am going to post it shortly so let me know what you think. ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 16:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, is there any objection if I do a couple of introduction sentences just to link the belonging section into online identity? ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 16:11, 31 March 2014 (

RE: Blogging: Not quite sure who wrote this section but I think it has a lot of good ideas. The only part a would suggest a small edit is the section that says 'it is a difficult thing to get your thoughts and opinions published' I thought it was quite informal maybe something along the lines of 'It is difficult for a notice writter to get their thoughts and opinions published'. Its not major change but just an idea.

I hoping to add to my fan culture section today when I find some more readings, anyone have any thoughts on it so far? Clairepporter (discuss • contribs) 11:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No objections that perfectly fine.Clairepporter (discuss • contribs) 16:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That is a good idea ButtonsElizabeth Caroline Malcolm (discuss • contribs) 16:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

ButtonsElizabeth, do you mind if I add something to the section you have just put up on, "blogging?" Caroline Malcolm (discuss • contribs) 16:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You are more than welcome Caroline. ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 16:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

For the Welcome/Unwelcome section maybe (sorry, not sure which member of our group wrote this particular section) you could round it up a little bit more in relation to online identity, maybe about how welcome or unwelcome aspects affects our online identities? It just jarred a little bit when I was reading it.ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 19:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Caroline, I really like your piece, but I would maybe suggest putting a description of persona in the glossary, especially as I suspect the word is going to come up quite a bit throughout the book. ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 19:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Elizabeth, I can do that... or at least try. Also my reference in my last edit did not come out right. Can somebody advise what I did wrong? Caroline Malcolm (discuss • contribs) 20:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have come across something in my readings which might be useful. I was thinking that online identity and by extension, 'belonging' could be viewed from the perspective of social networks interacting with the media. This would ultimately discuss citizen journalism and communication as people are now getting more involved with news and becoming a part of the process…Does this sounds like something that I could tie into our sub-category? Debsi91 (discuss • contribs) 22:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Debbie, yeah I think that would work especially after what Greg said this morning in the lecture about citizen journalism he seemed keen for us to tie other topics into our sections. Also social networks are probably the biggest example of the belonging idea anyway. Clairepporter (discuss • contribs) 11:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys, whats gone up so far looks really good! I was wondering what kind of words we could consider putting in the glossary? I think Persona would be one of these, as Elizabeth says. I think its difficult for us to establish what words online audiences might find contentious considering there may be a variable amount of knowledge on the topic. I'm going to ask with other wikipedians what the situation on this may be, and as to whether there are particular rules/ conventions to follow when looking at the glossary. What does everyone think? RedGebsKasia (discuss • contribs) 14:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I think persona, I added in disinhabition because until this module I didn't know what that meant. I read through the belonging section but they're aren't any other words in particular I noticed but I'll have a double check. Let me know if you get any feedback from other wikipedians Kasia. Clairepporter (discuss • contribs) 15:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Great, that's perfect! I will also note any glossary worthy words. I take it we are keeping all of our sections from 100-200 words. I'm not sure if other groups are keeping to a word count or if it depends on the depth of information available on each topic. Debsi91 (discuss • contribs) 17:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)2.217.3.245 (discuss) 23:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I added, "persona to the glossary," so I don't know why it is not comming up for you to see, but I will take a look. Caroline Malcolm (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I am going to add to some of my posts in this section and add some references because a couple of my entries have none so far and I think it would look better if I evidenced the research, so just to let you know that they will be updated later today. Caroline Malcolm (discuss • contribs) 10:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Also just to remind you all that I will be at room 10 for the presentation planning at 12:15ish because I have a class before and also that I will need to leave at 1:45 Caroline Malcolm (discuss • contribs) 10:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Main Theorists
Hi guys, i'm trying to add to the main theorists section of the wikibook with a few articles by theorists i have found. Yet I realise you will all be looking at the same stuff as this for your own research so i thought it would be a good idea that everyone could simply add to the theorists section as they go along? just post a link to whatever article you're using with the name of the theorist and a short description of their argument. Obviously if you feel like you are just repeating yourself thats ok, and if any of you would like just post a link to any writing under this topic and i can try and write a short summary for the section myself i'd be more than happy to, just an idea. If anyone has a better plan or thinks this wouldn't work so well please feel free to say so. Shayman1 (discuss • contribs) 17:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking that should danah boyd be mentioned? She has written a lot of especially about social networking sites but I'm not sure if she can be considered as a main theorist? What do you guys think? Liisamy (discuss • contribs) 18:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

well I guess we don't have to define it as "Main Theorists" that was just what I choose to begin with, we cold define it as something else in order to try and incorporate as many theorists as we'd like to use i guess. Would that be alright? just leave it as "Online Identity Theorists" or something. Shayman1 (discuss • contribs) 18:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I am up for changing it to online identity theorists, as I have some nice information on Lanier but did not know where to put it. Have you done some work on Lanier yourself and I can add to it if need be, or shall I go ahead and you can add to it? ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 18:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You could just change the title to "Theorists"? That way people can write about theorists that aren't necessarily defined as "online identity theorists" who have something important to say about online identity. SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 19:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That sounds right, I agree with Jamie on this one. I was just about to look into Lanier but i'd say simply add whatever you've got Elizabeth and if i ever find anything else to add i'll do so. It would be good if we could somehow link the theorists section to the section of the book they are referenced in somehow, is it possible to place a link to something further down the page? Shayman1 (discuss • contribs) 19:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

In the Lanier piece I have tried to relate it to some of the sections further on in the book. Do you think that is okay? I am unsure of how else we could do that, unless anyone else has a suggestion? ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 20:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I was looking at the theorists section and thought that we might want to add info on McLuhan to it, so I'll get the ball rolling with that, if that's alright? Megan4pmGlasses (discuss • contribs) 12:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a section written about McLuhan and Williams under 'Cultural Theories applied to Online Identity' but maybe adding some more information about them to the 'Theorist' section is also a good idea, as it will make it look more organised and easier to find. --Rekarippel (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Rekarippel! I've added a small section but will look at the Cultural theories sections so that I'm not duplicating any information! Megan4pmGlasses (discuss • contribs) 21:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Rekarippel and Megan4pmGlasses, I'm from the Technological Determinist group, do you guys want to link to our page and we can link to yours on your section of cultural and technological determinism connecting to online identity? AnnieMCook (discuss • contribs) 12:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi AnnieMCook, that sounds fine with me! The more interconnected our pages are the better I think :) Megan4pmGlasses (discuss • contribs) 07:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Social Networking Sites
Hi, I'm going to add a bit on this about how the development of SNS has caused people to need more authentic online identities. I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes and if someone has anything to add to that, they're more than welcome! Liisamy (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I was maybe going to write a little bit about how people tend to present themselves differently to different groups of people in their life and then this is reflected in the use of multiple social media accounts on different sites. (Like how someones facebook may seem professional, then instagram and snapchat could represent a whole other identity) Don't know if that treads on what you're trying to say though? or It could just be an extension to what you're saying, if you maybe angle it that because alot of social media is linked these days it causes individuals to stick to the one online profile? just a few ideas, feel free to write what you want. Shayman1 (discuss • contribs) 18:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

For the profile pictures section, I don't want to write anything incase it is being worked on, I think we need to develop the persona side of the argument, maybe describing what it is and bringing in briefly Jung's psychological dimensions and how he used the notion of persona to explain phenomena of role-playing. Thoughts ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 19:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

RE Shayman1 You're welcome to write about that, and maybe to add to that could be how business companies have profiles on social media and certain people who manage them. So, they're basically creating an online identity for their business e.g. all of the things a gym would post on their Facebook would be about fitness or healthy eating. Actually, I think I might want to write about that, if that's cool? We could collaborate the two together? Liisamy (discuss • contribs) 19:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

RE ButtonsElizabeth That's an amazing idea! Really good connections between online identity and what we've talked about during the module. I wish I had come up with that! Liisamy (discuss • contribs) 19:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

RE Liisamy Yeah no problem, write about your section and i'l try and incorporate mine once I can, I never thought about how companies have online identities too, thats a great point! Shayman1 (discuss • contribs) 19:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to write about youtube as being a social media site and form of online identity because i don't think its really been looked at yet, and it could tie in with the whole anonymity thing, sort of as a counter argument, ive not done much work on it yet but i'll keep you posted on the direction im going with it, and if anyone else would like to collaborate with me just put a wee reply. (because i could use the help) EuanWhitelaw (discuss • contribs) 14:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys. I'm from one of the groups doing Always-On Culture and I just wanted to ask if I could put a link in my paragraph to your paragraph about social media sites? I wanted to link my paragraphs about teens and always-on back to online identity and thought it would be good if the pages were interlinked. Thanks KathrynHairUpAndGlasses (discuss • contribs) 18:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

RE Shayman1 When talking about the online identities of a business, I think it would be important to note their use of social media as a means of seeming less like a business, and make them appear more 'human like', which is against the grain for most businesses who wish to keep a professional standard - for instance, O2 and Tesco Mobile bantering between each other on Twitter. Jack.oldfield (discuss • contribs) 19:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

RE EuanWhitelaw I'd be interested to see the connections of anonymity and YouTube - especially considering that Google+ is now connected to your YT account. Would definitely be interested in collaborating. Jack.oldfield (discuss • contribs) 19:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

RE Kathryn I am sure that I speak for most when I say that seems like a really good idea. However, I would have to let you do that as I am not sure how to make it happen. ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 20:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

RE Jack.oldfield That's actually a really good point as well! it would be quite interesting to put in a section discussing how a company's SNSs profile is used in order for it to appear more friendly and relatable to their consumer audience instead of just thinking of their customers as just money making opportunities, Is that something you'd like to write about jack.oldfield or Is that something I could add to your section Liisamy? Shayman1 (discuss • contribs) 20:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

RE KathrynHairUpAndGlasses yeah that would be great! I was thinking about referencing how our online identity is constantly kept up and updated more than ever before through the use of always-on culture so would it be alright if I could link to you also? If theres any other sections of cross-over it would be good to continue the link between our pages to deepen the information we have. Shayman1 (discuss • contribs) 21:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

RE Shayman1 & Jack.oldfield you can write about that Jack.oldfield if you want and we can add stuff that we think are important, since it's a collaboration. Liisamy (discuss • contribs) 13:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC) 92.28.139.93 (discuss) 09:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

RE Shayman1 I'm guessing that I will put my section under 'promotion of identity'. Would it be worth talking briefly about the growing number of businesses that use online identity through social media as their sole means of marketing? Jack.oldfield (discuss • contribs) 13:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

RE Jack.oldfield That's a really good point to focus on, big companies and corporations using social networking means to create an online identity synonymous with their marketing demographic! I have friends who have started businesses, some in fashion, some in hospitality, some in photography and they even use SNS as a sole place to set up an image and identity that they can market to people! It's all about the demographic and reaching them through a constructed online identity! Kriscampbell91 (discuss • contribs) 14:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

To whomever has written about "Flexibility of the Self" I think you have articulated the point really well! Your section is a SNS specific example of the idea of "Multiplicity" posted earlier under the Anonymity heading. Would you be open to editting this slightly to highlight the link between this idea as exemplifying the term multiplicity which is explained prior to your section? It would really connect and link the entire page together! Kriscampbell91 (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

RE Jack.oldfield yes definitely! It would be great to see some statistics of some sort of how social media marketing has grown over the years, and possibly mention how other media outlets that used to make their money from advertising are at a huge loss because of it (newspapers etc.). It could also be linked to always-on culture seen as it allows company's to advertise whenever/however much they like without the restrictions of newspaper or television advertising and so on. Shayman1 (discuss • contribs) 15:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

RE Shayman1 I never thought of comparing it to always-on, or look at the fall of traditional media that relied on advertising. I also think that 'creating an online identity synonymous with their marketing demographic' is a really key point Kriscampbell91, there could even be an expansion on that, in the idea that they are catering to the demographic of social media as well, broadening their scope of their target market. Jack.oldfield (discuss • contribs) 15:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure I already mentioned it somewhere but I'm currently working on something about online (customised) advertising in social networks. I'd also like to point you towards a dissertation that I found particularly helpful in my research process. It contains loads of theoretical background information to our topic as well: http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/files/2013/10/A_critique_of_identity_representation_in_social_media.pdf BerlinLea (discuss • contribs) 16:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kris, I have tried to link the flexibility of self section to multiplicity. Do you think it is okay? ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 19:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

RE ButtonsElizabeth I think it reads really well. I especially enjoyed your quotation from academic reading 'Physically attractive people will get noticed at a party, but articulate, insightful and witty people who know how to spell will get noticed online.' I remember noting it when reading and thinking what an interesting aspect, building identity through manipulation of witty language. Do you know you to set an in-page link from the word 'multiplicity' that can link to the multiplicity section and I could edit 'flexibility' into my text to link to your section. It would link these ideas as they are stemming from the same root of multiple images of identity online. It would really strengthen the page as a collaborative work! I'm not sure how to go about finding out how to do it, I have tried to speak to reading room before regarding how to put notes in the page but heard nothing back - luckily a classmate came to my rescue - so I am reluctant to ask reading room again. Kriscampbell91 (discuss • contribs) 13:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Kris I don't know how to do it either, sorry. But I have asked on the reading room, so I will check in the morning for that hopeful answer. ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 21:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Glossary
I was having a quick scan through the Wikibook earlier and I noticed that although we have an awful lot of stuff written up, we only have three terms in the glossary. I thought it might be a good idea to create this little section so that if anyone comes across any terms that they think should be clarified in the glossary, they can put a little note here so that someone can sort it out. SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 21:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah this is a good idea, I had added a word to it yesterday and noticed the same thing. Not sure who wrote the section of technological determinism under the cultural theories heading but maybe you could add 'technological determinism' to the glossary, as I know before this module I wouldn't have know what it was. Clairepporter (discuss • contribs) 11:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you about that. I think that section was done by someone in my group so I'll ask them to add "technological determinism" and "cultural determinism" to the glossary. SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 13:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys, I've consulted other Wikipedians asking on some general advice on the content we should consider putting in our glossary, so they should hopefully get back to me soon. RedGebsKasia (discuss • contribs) 15:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I know this isn't directly linked to the glossary but I noticed some people are linking certain words to wikipedia pages, it's a pretty good idea. Can anyone advise me on how to do this? Clairepporter (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

RE Clairepporter What words in particular are you wanting to link to other wikipedia pages? SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 18:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Clairepporter to link a word to a Wikipedia page, put this type of bracket [ before the Wikipedia web page address, then leave a space and type the word you want to link to then finish off with a ] bracket. So if you wanted to link, say Sherry Turkle, you would begin with a [ then put in the web address here followed by "Sherry Turkle" (without the inverted commas) and finish with a ]. Here is the example Sherry Turkle. Hope this works for you!George Berrie (discuss • contribs) 19:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I have heard back about information from the Reading Room about Glossary help. They were very helpful, saying that as a writer they considered that very little words were needed to be used in the glossary, however as a reader they would link words that were particularly difficult and perhaps link them to other wiki's or dictionaries to give a description on the word RedGebsKasia (discuss • contribs) 09:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've added a glossary entry on, "realism," but when I looked the word up in the dictionary and on wikipedia I found that it has loads of different meanings in relation to different fields such as: philosophy, sciene, social sciene, media, art and so on. I added the definition that seemed most the central and holistic, but feel free to add to it if you feel it does not involve the notion of online identity and realism. Caroline Malcolm (discuss • contribs) 09:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with that George. Clairepporter (discuss • contribs) 15:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Layout
Hi all, since there is so many of us working on the project, a few of us where discussing today that it is quite difficult to organise our Wikibook to make it look aesthetically appealing. I was wondering what people thought about the general layout of the page, and whether things needed to be swapped around to make it look better? For example, I was considering the 'Contents' tab being at the top of screen, whereas the title 'Online Identity' is below this, and not very visible on first glance of the Wiki. What do people thing about putting this below the introduction? RedGebsKasia (discuss • contribs) 15:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering about the layout also. I agree that the content tab should be below the title, so that it would be more clear what we're writing about. I was also thinking about pictures, since that's common especially on Wikipedia and I've seen them on Wikibooks, too. It could make the page flow a bit better and it wouldn't be all text, which looks quite boring to be honest. Should we post pictures if it relates to the subsection that we're writing about or will it be too crowded then, what do you guys think? Liisamy (discuss • contribs) 15:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a good idea. I think it will definitely make the Wiki look a lot more appealing. As you say, I think there being a lot of writing can possibly make it long to read, especially since there is so many topics! However I think we will have to be careful when posting pictures due to copyright. Also we probably won't need pictures for every section. What are peoples thoughts on this? And also which topics would be suitable for pictures and others not so? RedGebsKasia (discuss • contribs) 15:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that all sounds good. I was going to ask what people thought about the balanace of the page as we were talking about it with Greg in class today in terms of how well balanced text will make it more asthetically pleasing. Most of the sections are pretty equal apart from the section on social media sites under the impression management heading. Maybe the person who wrote this could consider putting in a sub-sub heading in this just to break it up a little as it is quite a large piece of text. What do people think? Clairepporter (discuss • contribs) 15:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering what everyone else thinks about the "Main Concepts" section? It seems a bit odd to me to call a section "Main concepts" and then talk about theorists rather than purely concepts. Also, it makes it seem like all the other sections of the Wikibook aren't main concepts, which isn't necessarily the case. Do you think it would be best to change the name of the section to "Theorists", rather than having that as a sub-heading? SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I was wondering whether the overall structure perhaps needs to be changed ever so slightly to make the Wikibook a bit neater? I was having a look at the page for Always-On Culture and the way they have their work arranged seems to make a bit more sense as well as making it far easier to read and navigate. Perhaps some of you could take a look at their page if you have a spare moment and tell me what you think about doing the same sort of thing with our page? SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 19:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I also agree about the content tab needing to be moved, however I am at a bit of a loss how to do that, so someone else might have to give that a shot. As far as pictures go, I think it would be nice to break up the content, but the only thing I can think of for pictures would be generic Google images of people using the internet or avatars, and I am not sure how much that would add to the page. Also, Claire, I wrote a bit of the SNSs section, so I will have a look at it and see what I can do. Do you have any suggestions as of yet though? ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 20:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

As for the Main Concepts Section I agree that it looks a bit odd that Theorists is a sub heading. Do you think we should move it to its own heading, maybe before the glossary, or even before the Cultural Theories section? It would make it a lot neater. As far as comparison the Always-On page, I think this page is inevitably going to look a bit more chaotic (and I am not saying it is too chaotic) as at the moment we have more content. ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 20:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

RE ButtonsElizabeth I'm sure for the pictures there would be plenty of images used within our source material that would fit in nicely into any information we have taken from them, plus for the mention of certain sites (facebook etc.) we could just add in company logos to try and separate the text. Might be quite nice to add a picture of the theorists to their section, i do agree the theorists section should be moved too or come under it's own sub-heading anyway, it would flow a lot better with the layout. Shayman1 (discuss • contribs) 21:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

RE ButtonsElizabethThanks so much for rearranging the SNS section, it looks much better now! Liisamy (discuss • contribs) 13:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think perhaps our page doesn't look as good as Always-On because we simply have more content, as Elizabeth has already mentioned. It's great stuff though, so we wouldn't be wanting to delete it. Perhaps if people can give their sections a quick scan to determine if some could be made more concise? Other than that, it's all pretty relevant so there's probably no harm keeping it. With pictures, we may have to be careful not to detract from the professional look of the page. Do you think company logos will be allowed or will there be copyright issues? Does anyone have any knowledge of rights we would need to attain to include certain images beside our text? BobblehatImara (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys - George here from Always On - your stuff looks great! When I was doing my bit for our section I thought I could contribute a wee bit to your book from what I had found in my research - it relates to SNS and probably fits best with what you have headed up as 'Complications'. Here is what I've got re complications - if you're happy with it I can post it where I've suggested - or if you want to post it I can give you the references. Just let me know what you think. "Jaron Lanier said that the most important thing about a technology was how it changed people (Lanier 2011) and warns of the restrictions of being ‘Locked-in’ to a particular technology. There is support for this concern in terms of online identity within social networks from Geert Lovink (Networks Without A Cause: A Critique of Social Networks, 2011). He argues that there is little freedom to present yourself in different ways online and social networking sites only offer users a limited choice of presenting their personal and professional information to the world. He goes on to quote critic Zadie Smith who challenges this narrow choice forced on users by Facebook in saying, “What kind of living is this? Step back from your Facebook Wall for a moment:  doesn’t it, suddenly, look a little ridiculous? Your life in this format”. This seems to crystallise Lanier’s point about the problems with being Locked-in to a particular technology – our online identities – a presentation of our lives – force-fitted into a format to enable social networking sites to neatly package users’ information to monetise the content." Cheers.George Berrie (discuss • contribs) 18:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi George I am happy for you to post it as we would have to reference it as your contributions anyway. And if it doesn't work we still have time to change it. But I think they are valid points that fit with that section. ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 20:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead with moving the Theorists section as discussed and if it doesn't work or look right we can rethink. ButtonsElizabeth (discuss • contribs) 20:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Elizabeth - ok, thanks, will post the item - will try not to screw up the referencing in the process!George Berrie (discuss • contribs) 08:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

RE: ButtonsElizabeth: The SNSs section looks great, just think it looks more uniform with the rest of the page now. Clairepporter (discuss • contribs) 10:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone, i was wondering on peoples thoughts on where abouts on the Wikibook page I should place 'gaming.' I shall put it somewhere for now, however as many of us are aware many ideas link together so i'm unsure where it will fit into the book best. Some feedback would be great, and also if anyone feels it would be better off in another section then please let me know! RedGebsKasia (discuss • contribs) 15:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

For now i have put it in the belonging section. It is clear to see that gaming allows a sense of belonging in online communities, however, gaming also has the ability to be under many other sections of the blog, as I'm not sure how well it fits in belonging. Theres so many strands off just one topic! RedGebsKasia (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Team Axe Discussion
Hi guys, I guess we can use this bit for discussion about our presentation? Megan4pmGlasses (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good! Mattfinitejest (discuss • contribs) 13:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

AXERS! I am working on the disinhibition effect at the moment. Discussing the six contributory factors of it - thanks again for the link Shayman! How are you all getting on - Shayman, how is everything with your multiplicity work? How is everything Catfish Megan4pmGlasses? What about you, SmithBiancaAnn, you had some really good insights and theories in your notebook the other day! Are you inserting any of the psychoanalytical theories you had written down - what were they again? Kriscampbell91 (discuss • contribs) 14:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yup, I’m just typing them out now and will run them by you before I post as I’m not quite sure where to put all of my work, it has to be together and I was perhaps thinking of just putting it in under the main researchers because all my work is from this one guy pretty much but it does obviously cover some other topics that are sub headed in the wiki book contents page, so I’m not quite sure just yet. SmithBiancaAnn (discuss • contribs) 14:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Oh and there just talking a little about life before the technology in terms of identity and whether online activity has complicated or simplified our communication and identity SmithBiancaAnn (discuss • contribs) 14:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm currently waiting for a response on how to create links within content as oppose to referencing but I've been looking at doing content for Marshall McLuhan as well as continuing with the Catfish part. :) Megan4pmGlasses (discuss • contribs) 14:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, let me know how to do that when you find that out because that would be really useful and i have read all my research online SmithBiancaAnn (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, RE:Group Presentation on Tuesday. As I understand it, we have to make the entire seminar as interesting and engaging as we can for the rest of the class and I thought that we could do this by using different kinds of tools throughout, for example using the online application, Prezi, to make our presentation - it's similar to powerpoint but is slicker and more modern. I also thought that we could use relevant Youtube videos & maybe discuss real life examples that we had experienced with regard to online identity and maybe use one of our Facebooks as a source and example of how online identity is compared to our offline identity. Just some thoughts! :) I'll also let you know Bianca :) Megan4pmGlasses (discuss • contribs) 14:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Aye that sounds grad, I know an amazing presentation site, its way better than power point and make it look really slick and smart so we can use that!!! SmithBiancaAnn (discuss • contribs) 14:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Prezi is a pretty good shout. Seems way better than Powerpoint. On top of our own experinces, we could ask the seminar group of theirs, and then relate them to each other, or academic research. Jack.oldfield (discuss • contribs) 14:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the presentation sounds like a great idea, It will make it a lot more engaging for the rest of the seminar group to enjoy, once we sort out the presentation we should definitely look into what we should do as our seminar activity. maybe a group discussion incorporating what jack.oldfield said about the whole seminar's experiences? we should also get into making handouts as well whenever one of us has time. Shayman1 (discuss • contribs) 14:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Prezi sounds like the way to go. We should also start looking for various multimedia elements we can include within the presentation, like Youtube videos and whatnot, like Megan said. I just wrote up an entry on reputation systems. Mattfinitejest (discuss • contribs) 15:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

RE Getting up in front of the class and talking ONLINE IDENTITY! Prezi could be fun. Is it more user-friendly than Wiki? :/ LAWL I am so down for this idea. We could use one of our facebook's to really tease out differences from the online self and offline self. I am pretty loud online compared to my offline self (who isn't entirely mute)- with regard to playing to an audience (as I'm sure you'll know, girls) We could use the ideas represented in the presentation to hold a mirror up to the class and help them see deviations from their offline self, in their online self too - like perhaps gets some disclosure from them and accounts of their own online behavior? Personalising the seminar could make a really poignant point that will stick with the class and have them really engage with the topic. That's why I was drawn to it in the first place, online identity, through contemplating my own usage! Thoughts, crew? Kriscampbell91 (discuss • contribs) 16:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've never actually used Prezi, only seen it used, but I'd assume it's more user friendly than Wiki. And I'm definitely for the idea of personalizing elements of the discussion on online identity. Maybe use one of our profiles as an example and then invite the class to discuss/think about how their real-life selves differ from their online selves. Mattfinitejest (discuss • contribs) 17:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Should we meet up soon then in order to create the slideshow and assign the roles for the presentation for the class? and would anyone like to nominate their facebook for an example to use? i don't think mine would be the best example to use, it's rare that i update it these days. I think it would be really good for after the presentation like Kris said to allow the class to look at themselves and let them look into how they act differently online than they do offline, that could then lead into a group discussion of what interesting points people managed to find? just a few ideas. Shayman1 (discuss • contribs) 17:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok so should we start to delegate roles? I'm guessing that a lot of this may have to be split up and done over the weekend? I guess one person could collate all of the presentation info & we all paste them our individual info on their discussion tab, another person could make handouts of that for the class, another could look on youtube or other sources for other resources that we could use, another could organize class discussion points and another could analyse how to use real life social media experience? Megan4pmGlasses (discuss • contribs) 10:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

'''Yes AXERS. It's time, let's now get together and share the group presentation ideas we've been working on.''' We must Orchestrate, Delegate, "Schedulate"? I am happy to offer my Facebook for use, I would ask that someone, Megan maybe, log in and take the sufficient screen shots and elements from my Facebook as I am still on my 40 day social media hiatus. I can pass my login details but no monkey bidnezz! Just kidding. I think we should have a structured exercise which requires the class to analyse their own SNS activity - without forcing them to vocally disclose examples or 'outing' them if they prefer not to disclose. Enough that the exercise can have them engage in small groups and be able to reflect on the media we show them and in turn on themselves. They can perhaps reflect on the SNS examples we show them, have them try and identify some of the theoretical approaches we have discussed throughout the module i.e. disinhibition effect, multiplicity etc perhaps, and have them feedback? We can use multimedia sources (i.e. videos, blogs, vlogs etc) to introduce academic ideas and then have the class identify these in real live examples (our case study, and themselves) '''I am available before 1pm or after 5pm tomorrow. I've cancelled a trip to Glasgow to make this work so I sincerely hope you guys can try to make it to. We'll get a booth, we'll binge eat and talk Online Identity! Let me know.''' My number is on my userpage for you both. (Jack and Matt).

Definitely agree with the structured exercise - the class could look at each of their SNS, then look to see which one they use the most, and even which one they consider to be the 'truest' reflection of their offline identities, and why. Jack.oldfield (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

As I am sure most of you are aware, I will be home from Friday through till late on Monday so obviously I won’t be able to meet up to collaborate on how the presentation is going to run smoothly in class which is very annoying indeed ! But however, if we keep in contact via this wiki chat then I can be kept up to date and I am more than happy to make worksheets for the class so long as I know what you would all like me to put on them, that way it’s still a group thing and everyone gets a say. But everything looks great and you can also use my Facebook as well if you are wanting to maybe compare them to illustrate certain points. In terms of Prezzi, does it work like a sight in which we have to have an email and password to get on it, one which we would all have and use? If so this is helpful as I can edit it and add things to it from home. I shall also scope the web for illustrating pictures, YouTube videos, diagrams memes etc. Anything which I think will help get our point across and keep the class interested! SmithBiancaAnn (discuss • contribs) 18:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

HOW DO I ADD A SECTION IN AS A SEPRATE SECTION ?! SmithBiancaAnn (discuss • contribs) 20:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You need to add 2 '=' signs at either end of your topic title, just like how it's done for the other section titles Shayman1 (discuss • contribs) 22:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Hey guys, I'm happy to analyse Chris's Facebook and screenshot some examples of online identity attributes that we can use as an example for our class discussion. Chris has given me his login details so that I can look past his privacy settings. Also, Bianca Prezi is an online resource that just requires an email & password login so we could create one and then post the login details on the Facebook Group. Megan4pmGlasses (discuss • contribs) 08:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the most important things to take from Kris's facebook would mainly be profile pictures and different status', posts etc. that's what will show his online identity mostly, we can talk further when we meet up on monday, then once we've delegated all of the roles we could have a quick runthrough of our seminar plan on Tuesday just before we go in seen as it's at 4? i'll be free from about 12-4 anyway, If that sounds alright with people? Shayman1 (discuss • contribs) 15:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea Shayman1, I am free from 3pm onwards on Monday and 2-4pm on Tuesday. Jack.oldfield (discuss • contribs) 15:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good Megan, I will keep my eye on Facebook on the Monday then when you guys meet up. Let us know as well what is going in the work sheet and I am also available form 12 onward to meet up on the Tuesday, just to go over everything that I may have missed. SmithBiancaAnn (discuss • contribs) 20:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Impression Management
HI Kriscambell91 I was just reading about your section on multiplicity and managed to find this great article covering the topic by a guy called Jonathan Vanasco, he has a lot of great things to say on the subject. http://www.destructuring.net/IdentityResearch/Essays/2007_11/01/2007-11-01--II_theory.html you can find it all there, I was wondering if i could edit your piece to incorporate some of what this writing is saying?

RE Shayman Sean, the article reads really well. I would be okay with you editting and putting some of your ideas from this into the piece. I am working on the dishinibition effect specifically at the moment and will be adding this after the multiplicity section. Maybe we round off multiplicity on the potential negative use of multiple identities to flow nicely into dishinibition effect. I've also noticed that under blended identities there has been a "Multiple identities" section written which will potentially just regurgitate what we have already started. Perhaps we can negotiate to collaborate all the efforts made on the multiplicity idea?. Kriscampbell91 (discuss • contribs) 13:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

RE Kriscambell Yeah that sounds good, i'll try to add in the negative effect in to make it flow nicely, It can be said that since so many social networks are linked these days through your accounts and email addresses it can be hard for someone to hide one online identity from others. If you think that would flow? or is there another angle you'd like me to take? yeah we should definitely discuss that with whoever wrote it, It would make sense not to repeat ourselves within the book. Shayman1 (discuss • contribs) 14:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

RE Shayman I have posted in the SNS discussion section asking whoever wrote it if they would mind adding a sentence with the term multiplicity into their section as it is basically the core idea they are basing their content on. I think the page can work with both sections, as long as it marked that the SNS section is a social networking specific example of multiplicity. If the author doesn't see it first, I'm sure someone who co-authored the piece will allow it. Kriscampbell91 (discuss • contribs) 14:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Impression Managment
Hi, I don't know if I have written this right or in the right place. But I just read the section about Impression Managment-great bit by the way-but I noticed that there was a reference to 2006 and then 2014 but between that it says, "12 years later." I just wasn't sure if that was an error or if I have missed something, but I thought I should let you know. Caroline Malcolm (discuss • contribs) 16:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh and sorry, just noticed that there is already a section for Impression Managment-oops Caroline Malcolm (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That was my section and my mistake. Just went back corrected it. I'm just awful at math. Thanks for catching it! Mattfinitejest (discuss • contribs) 17:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No Probs! Glad to help. Just wasn't sure if I had mis-read something. But I'm glad it was sorted Caroline Malcolm (discuss • contribs) 21:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

RE: Security and Privacy in Social Media: Not sure who wrote this but what was wondering if the sentence on its own that says "This ties closely in to citizen journalism and blogging and both topics can be found in this chapter if the topic of Free Labour is one that you are researching." was suppose to be there? Clairepporter (discuss • contribs) 10:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Straight Outta Compston's discussion
Hi people! I thought we could use this section to discuss our project. --Rekarippel (discuss • contribs) 16:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, we'll have to copy over the discussions we've had on Facebook about it at some point. How are you getting on with your stuff? SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 17:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Not too bad, although given that the other groups seem to have covered all of the basics, it's a little tricky to find new areas for paragraphs... --JTCUoS (discuss • contribs) 17:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest having a look at the Wikipedia article for Online Identity to give you ideas for topics. Then you can go off and research one of them from an angle that interests you. That's what I tried to do with my sections on Blended Identity. I've finished all of my contributions, so I won't be on here as frequently as I have been between now and the deadline, however, give me a shout if you need help with anything! SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 17:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Great idea guys! Jamie great work you have been doing, I kind of feel like I'm running out of topics to explore. Would it be bold if I added some psychological studies? I'm doing psych as my major after all.. :)--Eszter00 (discuss • contribs) 17:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I am almost done with my part guys, I will post it tonight, and if you feel you want to add something, I don't mind if you edit it.--Rekarippel (discuss • contribs) 17:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Re Eszter00 Feel free to add some psychology stuff if you think that it's relevant to the topic of online identity. I think I'm right in saying that some people have already done a similar sort of thing? SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 17:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that, but I think I could take that further. Maybe. I will. Or my online self will. --Eszter00 (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to give away anything, but guys I think I have some great ideas for our presentation! Excited yet? --Eszter00 (discuss • contribs) 18:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Ahhhhh, hello beautiful people. Discussion sounds great so far. Still trying to get to grips with this thing and could hardly remember my password hahaha Thetallerandrew (discuss • contribs) 18:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC) P.s we really do have the best team name Thetallerandrew (discuss • contribs) 18:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Psych theories sound great. Think it will broaden our topic into a great field of further studies! Our presentation does sound exciting. I think we can rock the class with it. "Rock it til the waterfaaaall" (Beyonce Reference there)Thetallerandrew (discuss • contribs) 18:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Re Eszter00 I think you should definitely add psychologycal studies that support the topic! It's always good if you can apply things you learned in your other modules. What do you have in mind?--Rekarippel (discuss • contribs) 23:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Re Eszter00 Just out of interest - what section are you thinking about posting your psychology-based work in? SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 09:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Re SilentJamie The psychology work sounds a great addition. I've added quite a bit to the industries part, including adding a fashion industry section and a marketing and went on to descirbe how each have been influenced by the extent to which we are on always using technology.80.42.15.23 (discuss) 23:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Presentation Discussion
Just thought I'd make this little sub-section to keep our discussion about the presentations separate from the discussion about the Wikibook. SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 17:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jamie! Since you won't be here this week, we will keep you updated about what we planned. Also you can let us know how you are getting on with your part. --Rekarippel (discuss • contribs) 23:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem! I'll be sure to keep you updated. SilentJamie (discuss • contribs) 09:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah we shall do a lot of work on Sunday for the presentation and keep on track with the work that Jamie sent us on the chat thing. We can get plenty done in great time so that we can get a good presentation done 80.42.15.23 (discuss) 23:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Just curious as to what our current plans are for the presentation. Will we be displaying a powerpoint, or just handing out printout with slides on them? --JTCUoS (discuss • contribs) 08:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

RE JTCUoS Did you get the message I sent you on Facebook about this?

Yes, just received it a few minutes ago. Should have no problem in writing a paragraph or two on collaborating via Wikibooks. If there's a particular area of Online Identity you want me to write on for this, feel free to let me know. --JTCUoS (discuss • contribs) 09:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)