User talk:AbbyWaugh

This is a part of my university project for a 2019 film and media course. AbbyWaugh (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

How visible am I online?
I am visible on the social media platforms Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube. I also use Google for emails and creating documents. I am very active on all of these platforms, with my phone telling me that some days I spend over four hours browsing these apps.

What kinds of information are available about you online
On these apps my name, date of birth, hometown and images of me are made available to public view. However, on Snapchat and Facebook only people that I approve of can see this information and contact me. On Snapchat only people that I trust can see my location and I have it set to a customised view.

How much of this information is under my control?
On Instagram I could set my account to private so that only my followers can see my pictures however I deem it unnecessary at this point as I don't post any inappropriate pictures and many people who I don't know already follow me. On Snapchat, due to harassment issues which were beyond my control, I changed my settings to only my friends can send me snaps, which has fixed the issue completely. I suppose on any social media, if you take the correct measures, you can protect you information online however, you cannot fully control what people do with your information or prevent people from sharing it so it isn't always in complete control.

How does this relate to collaborative essay?
My chosen topic is Social media movements and this applies well as it shows how much social media has taken over our lives. People have huge presences online and many share information publicly with whoever wants to view it around the world. This could be a point that my group can address in our essay and talk about the potential dangers that come with this.

AbbyWaugh (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

To what extent are my online and offline identities aligned?
Perhaps my online and offline identities are different, as I have the choice to decide who I would like to be online, whereas in reality there is less of that option. With face to face interactions there is less room to change your personality, appearance and character. This is completely different online.

Personally, I don't think that my online and offline identities are that dissimilar. However, there are things that I don't show. My Instagram and Twitter accounts are public and so I am less likely to put information about my family and relationship on there. I do tend to talk about them on Twitter but I do not share images unless I am sure that they would be comfortable with that. On Facebook and Snapchat though, I do post pictures of them and funny videos as I get to control who sees them, and know where the boundaries are. Apart from this, my online and offline self are quite the same, minus the difficult times. Although this is not because I am ashamed or think that I am the only person who goes through tough times, it is more due to the fact that I know that other people don't want to see that type of content.

In the past I was more reckless about what I posted online, and perhaps shared too much occasionally.This is a mistake that I have learned from but also is part of the reason that I don't like young children having access to this social media. I know that when you are young you are bound to make silly mistakes online which can potentially be dangerous for young children.

Online I think that we have an ever-changing identity, as we want to fit in and not be forgotten about. If we see something that gets a lot of attention, we tend to want to do that so that we can get the same. It is a sort of competition to stay relevant and on top of trends.

We see influencers online who are payed to post pictures of themselves, mainly with edited photos and all inclusive holidays payed for by companies they work with. These photos get a lot of attention as they have enhanced their features to change their identity. We then think we need to look that way, or use those products or go to those resorts to stay relevant. This gives the companies exactly what they wanted, which is money.

Papacharissi claims that "whilst people are purportedly presenting themselves, they are presenting a highly selective version of themselves" [Papacharissi, 2010: 252]. This acknowledges that people are able to chose how others see them on social media, and can potentially present themselves completely different to how they actually are in real life. "These sites are about establishing, presenting, and negotiating identity, through the tastes and interests expressed" [Lui,2007]. One can make a connection to anyone online just by presenting themselves as having similar interests, even if it is completely false.

Overall, it is clear to see just how easy it is to change your identity online. Although for myself, my online and offline identities are pretty similar, I do know of cases where people have presented their lives online completely differently to how it is in reality. Something that people need to remember next time they feel left out or forgotten about online is that, the person who's life we're seeking after, could be completely different to how their life actually is. AbbyWaugh (discuss • contribs) 14:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Bibliography:

Lui, H. (2007). Social Network Profiles as taste performances. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication. 13(1). 13.

Papacharissi, Z. (2010). A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network sites. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. pp.252.

Hi Abby! I feel like you make some really interesting points here, and a lot of them I feel I can personally relate to. Overall, I think your main point here is that in the majority of cases, our identities do not come from ourselves but from those around us which is extremely ironic. Before reading your piece, I would have argued that this was what made our online and offline identities different. However, when I think about it now, I feel that this is actually what makes them so misleadingly similar. Even though we may go about presenting our online identities in a way in which we would never dream of doing offline meaning that our online identities regularly contrast with our offline ones, the logic behind the construction of both is almost identical. When we go about creating an image or identity for ourselves, we are always thinking about how it will be received by others. Thus, despite the fact that our identities are meant to be personal and intimate, they are so often tarnished by external views that we have just come to accept this as the norm. Creating an identity is just like the creation of any other media product. You know that for it to be successful and survive in this dog eat dog world, it must first have a specific audience in mind and, furthermore, it must not stray from the expectations of this said audience. This is perhaps why we feel like we need to present such a filtered version of ourselves online. Even though we say we don't care about the amount of followers/likes we have, we contradict such a statement every time we log onto our social networks and hit refresh just to see if anything has changed. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 21:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, i like that you made your piece rather personal, this made it relatable for myself also. I definitely agree that influencers and other posts we see online influence our own posts which make up our so-called online 'identity' therefore taking away from how much what we portray is truly our own identity; we tend to follow trends and things we know are admired, liked and popular instead of showing our reality for how it is. Like you've discussed i would definitely say that the one of main differences between online and offline versions of ourselves is the availability of choice, and control; we of course can decide our interests etc in real life but we are who we are and a lot of it is just human nature whereas filters, editing, captions etc. allow us to distort our reality and make it appear more exciting and appealing to our audience - which differs from platform to platform; i believe that we show a slightly different 'version' of ourselves on different platforms through our power to control and change any aspect we want to fit the trend/aesthetic of that site. We ourselves know that our social media isn't 100% the truth / extent of the truth (even though i personally don't distort my life too much online i do make it more aesthetically pleasing on Instagram which adds to the idea of my life being more than it is simply because my online portfolio of my life is visually pleasing) yet still buy into the idea that we need to meet the standard of lives that others have when in reality we are all living a similar, more bland lifestyle than we make out, even the influencers. Size3feet (discuss • contribs) 20:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey I completely agree here! I do not think my online identity is really all that different to my online one but I chose what parts of my identity I want to show on social media. I like the way you included the boundaries of different platforms because I also feel a lot more comfortable posting certain pictures or videos when I am able to control who has access to them. I also, much like yourself, had a bad habit of oversharing when I was younger and was just starting out on social media. I probably posted around 50 photos everyday and even had a folder that had over 100 photographs in it purely just of me making funny faces. I can definitely say my identity as a whole has grown with social media and I definitely would no longer do this! I am a lot more selective about what I show now. Your point about social media being a competition of sorts and everyone wanting to compete to get the same attention as others is very, very valid and I think this is something everyone is guilty of. I like the quote you used from Papacharissi because, as it states, people do present a highly selective version of themselves on social media. I find one issue however, mainly of photo based platforms, sometimes people are too selective of themselves they forget others in the photographs they are posting do not want their identities portrayed in this way. I have been guilty of it in the past and I know my friends have done it to me before. They post a photo on Instagram where they look good but I do not or vice versa and it can sometimes lead to arguments. It is a difficult thing to get around. But overall I really liked the way you have tackled this assignment and really do agree with what you are arguing! Lucybrowneyes (discuss • contribs) 11:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Annotated Bibliography (part B)
'''Source: Proulx, M & Shepatin, S (2012) Social TV: How Marketers can reach and engage audiences by connecting Television to the web, social media, and mobile. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and sons.'''

This source highlights that everyone has been impacted by television in some way or another. Whilst may people assume that the emergence of the internet killed the television industry, the truth is quite the opposite. More people are watching TV than ever, using mobile devises to converge with the TV set and change “the way I which we experience programming”. Social media’s, especially Twitter, are used as a ‘backchannel’ which drives broadcasts as conversations are no longer refined to the living room, but can be shared with others worldwide who are ‘co-viewing’. This “real-time chat” is most convenient on Twitter as it is public and doesn’t require an account to view. However, Facebook is also used to share opinions, it is just more private. Social media and portability of devices has encouraged a two-screen experience of watching TV whilst being on the internet a natural and comfortable way of viewing. Twitter is integral for “TV viewers who are looking to express themselves while watching broadcasts”. This source is strong because the author uses figures to back up points from research that they've done and relates to my research as it looks at how social media works with television to create a two-screen experience. AbbyWaugh (discuss • contribs) 19:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Collaborative Essay Critical Evaluation- 'What ARE Wikis?'
Wikibooks is a branch of the wiki sites, a collaborative form of digital textbooks, often promoting an educational community. Due to its availability online, Wikibooks “are accessible anywhere at any time, […] [and] store previous versions of the co‐written text, thereby allowing authors to compare current versions with previous modifications”.

There is high visibility on Wikibooks for users and contributors as each user has their own page, which anyone can write on, and tracks contributions so others are able to see every edit that one has made. This means that user’s activity is monitored closely, and has the potential to be monitored by others. In terms of articles, highly popular articles are going to be visible to a larger audience and are therefore more likely to be edited more strictly and checked upon by administrators.

The collaborative feature of Wikibooks means that "students can work simultaneously on the same document or create roles and work in a more sequential way” . This is a significant part of the site, despite the issues around group work. In my experience of writing a collaborative essay on the topic of ‘social media movements’ I found that the whole group were able to put forward their research equally and in most cases, this prompted others to contribute more and create good content. Part of this inspiration was also due to the fact that the page was public, for anyone to access. The “heightened awareness fostered student motivation to participate and produce higher quality work” . It also “provides students with the opportunity to construct their own knowledge” and reflect on their work.

“Wikibooks propose a different genre of textbooks written by volunteers”, encouraging an online community of contributors. In research conducted on Wiki communities, “the use of discussion pages was rated the most vital” for being part of the community. Nevertheless, Wikibooks has a very laid-back approach and unless you are working on a project, there are no obligations to contribute to any articles or interact with other users. This means that the term ‘community’ could be up for debate in terms of Wikis. It is more or less up to the individual as to how much they participate in the community, meaning that the site, for some individuals, can be isolating. Wikibooks does however have a ‘digital commons’ as it is “collaboratively developed and managed by a community” despite this being isolating for some. The site has users who will go above and beyond to help others and foster an online community. These individuals help to manage the site and develop articles to benefit other users.

Wiki platforms do offer online emancipation as anyone can attempt to edit articles and have their say. People can intervene if they think something is wrong or add comments on discussion pages, nothing can stop them expressing their opinions. Nonetheless, full online emancipation is simply not possible due to the fact that edits need to be approved by administrators and therefore, anything that breaks guidelines will not be approved and so users are not fully free on wiki platforms.

Hi I think you raise some really key and interesting points in your piece here. A lot of the points you raise I heavily agree with. I especially agree with what you said about the “heightened awareness” increasing the likelihood of a user contributing to the site. Something I found really interesting throughout the whole experience of this module, is that we don’t realise just how much our activities online depend on who is watching until we actually pause to think about it. The fact that you feel obliged to contribute to this platform or else you will run the risk of letting your team down, really does emphasise some of the ideas/arguments I came across during my research into the topic of Online Disinhibition which suggests that all forms of portrayal online are a mere performance and can differ depending on who is in the audience at any given moment.

I feel like this idea correlates heavily with another point you raise in your argument about how Wikibooks are much more laid back than the traditional publication process of textbooks in the offline world. The irony is, you are watched all the time in regards to how often you contribute, and such activity can be pulled up and monitored at any given time. Not only that, but if you contribute inappropriately, you will likely suffer penalties. However, no penalties will arise if you don’t contribute. Thus, it appears that this is a site which lives by a “come as you please” motto. Not only that, but although you are technically part of a community when you sign up to Wikibooks, unlike the completion of physical textbooks, you are by no means confined to one singular project as you mentioned, which is something that was really eye opening for me. Although I only took part in the Online Disinhibition section of the Digital Media essay, it felt off knowing that I could easily go into another section such as Web 2.0 and add something if I wanted to. Not only that, but normally once a deadline comes, you can’t do anymore to a text. This is not the case with Wikibooks, and thus, it truly is a platform that is always “under construction.”

However, I do agree that the term ‘community’ in regards to Wikibooks can be debatable. Like you said, the impersonal nature of the platform meant you often felt alone despite working with others. The discussion pages perhaps resembled traditional notions of community the most, however even then, the use of anonymous usernames challenged the reassurance and support you would normally receive in a group project. It really is a rather ironic community and, in my opinion, I feel like this is what makes it so distinguishable from any other educational tool out there. Normally in group projects, you will have face to face interactions. Yet, I feel like the rise of Wikibooks just acts as another clear indicator that we are becoming more and more reluctant to take part in this form of interaction in an increasingly digital world. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 00:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: ENGAGEMENT ON DISCUSSION PAGES & CONTRIBS
Grade descriptors for Engagement: Engagement on discussion pages, and contribs of this standard attain the following grade descriptor. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this descriptor will give you a clearer idea of how the grade you have been given relates to the standards and quality expected of work at this level:
 * Good. Among other things, good contributions will make a clear point in a clear way. They will relate concepts to original examples in a straightforward fashion. They will make effective use of the possibilities of the form (including formatting, links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons). They may also demonstrate a broader understanding of the module's themes and concerns, and are likely to show evidence of reading and thinking about the subject material, discussing this in a transparent way with fellow researchers on the Discussion Pages. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.

As instructed in the labs, and outlined in the assessment brief documentation, students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.

Evidence from contribs to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of editorial activity as evidenced through ‘contribs’). These are primarily considered for quality rather than quantity, but as a broad guideline:
 * Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable”
 * Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant”
 * Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial”
 * Items on a contribs list that are <1000 characters are important, and are considered in the round when evaluating contribs as a whole because of their aggregate value

Overall:
 * Fairly consistent (with a lull in the middle) engagement throughout the project period, with a fairly high volume of smaller contribs, a contrib deemed significant when applying the above criteria, and a small number of important substantial contribs. Many of these are of fairly high quality too.

Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages
 * Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration
 * Good
 * Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay
 * Good
 * Evidence of peer-review of others’ work
 * Good

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * Clear delegation of tasks
 * Good
 * Clearly labelled sections and subsections
 * Good
 * Contributions are all signed
 * Satisfactory

Civility. Your conduct is a key component of any collaboration, especially in the context of an online knowledge-building community. Please respect others, as well as observe the rules for civility on wiki projects. All contribs are moderated.
 * Good

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly correspond to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is in relation to the making criteria as outlined in the relevant documentation, it should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band overall:


 * Excellent. Among other things, these entries will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. They will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. They will address the assignment tasks in a thoughtful way. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts. They will be informed by serious reading and reflection, are likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.


 * This work is at the lower end of this (high) grade band, so there’s possibly a little room for improvement here. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets.


 * Generally very good use of the wiki functionality and markup which has gone some way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would make even more of a difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are especially good. They are reflective and critical, and draw on a good range of relevant sources. Also, you have engaged in discussion in an open and critical way (that is to say, you've responded to what other people are saying and are contributing meaningfully to discussion - arguably the civic element of wiki that you ought to be thinking about, which you clearly are).

General:
 * Reading and research: evidence of critical engagement with set materials; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material – all very good.


 * Argument and analysis: well-articulated and well-supported argument; evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position); evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections); evidence of independent critical ability – all excellent.


 * Presentation: good use of wiki markup and organisational skills.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)