User talk:Abfunkalicious

'''

Online Visibility Wiki Assessment #1
'''

With social media sites like Facebook and Instagram consuming a large chunk of my free time, I would have to say that my presence online is fairly visible. Because I have created accounts with these social media platforms, it means that anyone can search for my profile and find out relatively personal information. Such as where I went to school, who my family members are, where I last worked, what movies I have seen and who I spend time with (through looking at my photos). In the past I tended to have a more lenient approach to who I shared information with on Facebook because most of my profile was available to the public. However, after reading various news stories about how many people have had their online identities stolen, I decided to update my privacy settings to make my personal information on Facebook and Instagram more private. For example, my old posts on Facebook had previously been available to friends of friends but imagine how many people that is, I have roughly 200 friends on Facebook and if they have 200 friends, that’s about 38,800 people (I might not know) who can see embarrassing pictures from my teenage years. I decided that this was too many people, so I changed the privacy settings so now only my friends can see my older posts. But now I am wondering why Facebook had this privacy setting friends of friends as the default setting, it’s not very private. I could change the settings fairly easily, but I am concerned that older users of Facebook might struggle to change these types of privacy settings or they might not even understand that their information is available to the online world. Olshansky states “most of us contribute to a growing portrait of who we are online, a portrait that is probably more public than we assume” (Olshansky, 2016) https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2016/online-identity-who-me/. We might actively engage and produce content online but do we ever realise how far our content can reach or how many people can see it. Our online identity might be ours, but we must be wary that it is online which means others have access to it as well. Abfunkalicious (discuss • contribs) 11:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Hi, Andy!

You've made some very interesting points here about online visibility in relation to social media, that I enjoyed very much. I also love how the majority of the posts on Online Visibility seem to be largely connected to us just absolutely tearing apart our younger selves. Teenage years are gross, I've been reminded so many times today.

I've never thought about how many people would end up seeing my own posts through my friends posts. Going from 200 friends to 30,000 friends is a huge leap- but the worst part about that is that leap could well be accurate. Scary to think about, really. It's like that statistic that in your lifetime you will walk past at least 7 murderers. Like I know I'm making a stretch here in linking these two things, but I bet somebody is friends with somebody and they are friends with somebody who has murdered someone in their lifetime and then they could see your posts or pictures and, I mean, they probably aren't looking for someone to murder (but who knows really?) okay, this is going pretty far but I guess what I'm trying to say is that we really don't know what kind of people our private facebook posts are reaching and also that those people perhaps could be a murderer. It was just an example.

Anyway, I enjoyed reading your post very much! I hope you are finding your way through the collaborative essay ok! I cannot wait until Thursday when I can finally stop working on it and then we have no more deadlines for this course until April!

Digitalmediafiend (discuss • contribs) 23:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Your point that Facebook's default settings for privacy might be difficult for newer users of the Internet, and that they might have a limited understanding of the extent to which personal information can be shared unknowningly online, is actually a fairly good metaphor for all of the Internet today. I think that no one really can know how many people have seen their information online - which is a terrifying thought! The internet really is an immediate, permanent yet malleable place with endless exchanges of information. Things like stolen identities are more possible with every instance we willingly hand out personal information online. You prove in this post that online visibility isn't just an online identity, but rather a matter of the vast number of people who have access to that identity. Do you think as people become more visible online that privacy policies will become more protective or less? Auj00003 (discuss • contribs) 10:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting question Auj00003. As social media titans like Facebook and Twitter expand around the globe drawing more users to their websites (Facebook had 2 billion monthly users worldwide during the end of 2017(https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/)), I would hope that privacy policies will become more protective as now 2 billion people have the ability to search for you on Facebook and they may find some of your personal information. However if privacy policies do tighten, it may start to feel like censorship which is not a good thing. Abfunkalicious (discuss • contribs) 15:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * That statistic is outstanding! Thank you for sharing. You do make a great point on the topic of privacy versus censorship. Coming from the United States where the Internet is a fairly unregulated ground (...for now, more information on the recent possibility of ending Net Neutrality can be found here: States Push Back Against Net Neutrality ), censorship seems uncanny. Certainy other parts of the world, such as China, experience a very different media experience. I see that your collaborative essay topic is on online identity; how would you say online identities vary in countries with more relaxed censorship and countries with extreme censorship? Is one "better" than the other? Auj00003 (discuss • contribs) 12:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography Wiki Assessment #2
'''

PINTO, D. C., REALE, G., SEGABINAZZI, R., & VARGAS ROSSI, C.,ALBERTO. (2015). Online identity construction: How gamers redefine their identity in experiential communities. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14(6), 399-409. 10.1002/cb.1556 Retrieved from http://ezproxy.stir.ac.uk/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=111509324&site=eds-live

In this article Pinto et al review how gamers reimagine their identities through online virtual world communities. The aim of this study was to develop an understanding of the framework of online identity construction by gamers. The research produced results from in game interviews, group interviews and informal conversations with players in the virtual world. In this case the study focused on the game World of Warcraft. The study found two different self-dimension strategies that aides gamers to assemble their identities, self-extension and self-aggregation. Within the game, customizable avatars are created by players to form their digital self (self-extension) with some becoming emotionally attached to their online characters and their participation with other players in the online world through sharing virtual coins or possessions relates to self-aggregation. This article was useful in providing an example of how online identity works in the virtual world, gamers can reimagine themselves through their avatars to become something completely different from their physical self. The study also states that through virtual communities there is room for identity development and feelings of achievement who some players may lack in the physical world. The main limitation of this study is that it lacks comparison of online versus offline community activities within the gaming world. It would be interesting to see the real self against their digital self. This article will be useful in providing evidence to show how online identities may differ from real world identities. It also provides an idea of how people can become emotionally attached to their online self-extensions, which may be an interesting concept whilst discussing online identity during my Collaborative Essay. Abfunkalicious (discuss • contribs) 15:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Hi Andy, this is very useful for me as I am doing online identity too. Gaming identity was never something that came to mind to me when I thought of online identity, it wasn't until one of my group members said that he was looking at an article similar to yours. You have definitely prove his point, it is extremely interesting! I hope you don't mind if I steal your idea, and mention this in my groups collaborative essay, I hope you find my annotation helpful to you, and yours. It is bizarre to me that people think they need to be like someone else. However, I do understand why people feel they need to do so. I believe Pinto has made a great study of this. Reading your article has made me gain further knowledge of why people feel they need to change, in order to feel more confident in their own beings. Also, have you had firsthand experience (are you into World of Warcraft yourself)? Likewise, have you been able to find anymore of Harrell and Lim's work that have been useful to you? The question that myself, and the rest of the group have come up with is: would people be able to recognise you from your online identity or not? What is your groups question?MTxPrincipessa18 (discuss • contribs) 19:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi MT, thanks for commenting! Yeah of course you can use this idea for your collaborative essay. I have never played World of Warcraft but I have played Skyrim/ Elder Scrolls, which is kind of similar, so I can see how players might change their personalities for the game because it is fun creating yourself into a hero or something else entirely. Do you play games where you create your own personal avatar? Do you ever start to feel attached to that character? I found Lim and Harrell’s Social Identity Phenomena in Videogames an interesting read, I have never looked at videogames in the same depth before. Although they are just games, some do portray gender/race-related stereotyping. You might find more interesting material from Lim and Harrell on videogames here! That’s a really interesting question, I think some people would be surprised to learn how social I am online, I normally describe myself as quiet and reserved but I feel a lot more confident during online interactions. Do you think you have a different online personality? My group is still debating about our essay question but hopefully it will be resolved soon. Feel free to message Bring Me the Bananas about online identity, I’m sure we can help each other out. Abfunkalicious (discuss • contribs) 22:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Didn't realise I hadn't replied. Yeah, I can also see why people feel the need to change, but it is also quite sad. Thanks for all your help; recommending other sources. I too, have found some, if you want to look at my third assignment on my page. Good luck.MTxPrincipessa18 (discuss • contribs) 14:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a very well written annotated bibliography. I could grasp the main ideas, concepts, and examples used within the article from your summary. I can see myself using this as a source for my collaborative essay as mine is on convergence, specifically participatory culture, which is massively seen in the online gaming communities such as twitch and youtube. Your words on how we feel connected to our online avatar being something of a buffer to lack of physical connections is very accurate. Great read, I hope to hear more about your thoughts on this!

Hi Andy, This is a very interesting article for researching Online Identity which I am also studying for my collaborative essay. Looking at avatars as a self extension is a good example to directly see the differences of offline and online activity. The article I used for my bibliography had limitations due to it's lack of research evidence and extensive examples whereas here there is an example that can be researched deeper to strengthen points made when creating an essay on Online Identity. Lis00059 (discuss • contribs) 14:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lis, thanks for reading my annotated bibliography. What area of online identity are you looking into? Have you guys found enough reading material for your subject? I found that there is a hefty amount of material on blogs or news sites but I have been struggling to find relevant academic material! Are you going to include any multimedia within your essay, such as pictures or videos? Thanks again for commenting! Abfunkalicious (discuss • contribs) 22:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Andy!! As a gamer myself i can relate to people creating new identities and living through their avatars. It is completely understandable that as an indevidual after many hours of gaming you create a bond between you and the avatar. Even though I mostly FPS games I can relate. Gaming is always interesting because it can turn the most shy adn quiet person into the most talkative and taunting person. It is their way to express their feelings that they are too shy to express in real life. I think its a good escape for those people and allows them to relax as well. However it does get frustrating when things dont go your way online. I read another annotated bibliography yesterday about gambling and taking more risk online and i can agree you fee more powerful online. I guess yu could say you take more risks too. As a former WOW player i know its addictive but amazing and if you play with friends the quests never end. With extension packs and all always an amazing experience. Chrisalwayson (discuss • contribs) 09:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Collaborative Research Exercise: Wiki Assessment #3
Hi there, thanks for commenting on my annotated bibliography, your insights were very interesting and encouraged me to read more about convergence and how it can be related to online identity. Collaborative problem-solving is the main aspect of participatory culture that caught my attention.Henry Jenkins describes this as online identities working together to create problem-solving ideas, he states that participatory culture shifts “the focus of literacy from one of individual expression to community involvement” (Jenkins & Purushotma, 2009, pp6). I found this quote interesting as it can be digested to mean that when problem-solving through online interactions, it is our identities that come together to discuss and create solutions for the problems that we may encounter. Because physical interaction is not possible we have to rely on the online identity that we create to interact. A good example of this is our collaborative essays, if one of our classmates encounters a problem, we may reply with the solution through Wikibook interaction. Collaborative problem-solving is often used in online games such as World of Warcraft for missions or tasks. Players develop a character/ avatar to portray themselves in the game (forming an online identity) and will join to create a team to battle against opponents. This relates back to Jenkins as; individual players are coming together to achieve a community based goal of winning a battle or accomplishing a mission. Do you play any games that require online collaborative problem-solving? Do you agree with Jenkins that participatory culture is shifting the focus on individual expression to community involvement? Thanks Abfunkalicious (discuss • contribs) 12:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Reflection on Wikibooks: Wiki Assessment #4
Wikibooks can be described as an online open source public library, where users can act as both active producers and passive viewers. There is a vast sea of information and material within Wikibook, with frequent uploads from thousands of users, the sea will eventually expand into an ocean of complex information. Wikibooks can be closely related to the idea of a “hive mind”, a combination of users working together in collaboration to achieve an object, for Wikibooks, people are coming together to create pieces of information for varies topics which can be shared between users. I found the collaborative essay project an interesting experience due to the nature of it taking place in an online environment. It allowed for greater communication between users and it provided an excellent opportunity for classmates to generate and discuss ideas quickly. It was also useful to add information to each other’s discussions to develop a better understanding of the weekly reading assignments by linking to other academic work. If one classmate was unsure of the assignments, Wikibooks was a good place to ask questions that would be answered by other classmates, so by using the Wikibooks format, it allows for greater collaboration between classmates.

It felt like being a part of a smaller “hive mind” when participating in our collaborative essays, one person would suggest an idea then the other group would add suggestions to make a better overall argument, I found it very helpful to get feedback from my group members. Working collaboratively online was an interesting challenge, these challenges were very different compared to writing any other conventional essays. For instance, the Wikibooks layout and wiki mark-up was a bit confusing during the first assignments but using the user sandbox really helped my learning. The sandbox is a place where I could practice using the wiki functions such as creating tables, inserting images and using the reply to user functions (although I am still a bit hazy about the copyright issues for the images). Wikibook’s was a new concept to me, I had not heard of it before this module, I feel like most people know about Wikipedia but are unaware of Wikibooks. This might be because it tends to be directed at academics or students. Therefore, I feel like it has a weak visibility in the online world, if more people knew about this interesting intellectual site, the “hive mind” would become collectively smarter as more information would be created by users generating different types of material.

I normally describe myself as a passive social media user, as in I rarely post my thoughts on to Facebook or upload images to Instagram, so I was very aware that other classmates may be reading my work which at first was a little bit intimidating but after a few positive feedbacks from users in the comments it became a lot easier. Having a partially anonymous user name was a large confidence boost, because it allowed me to speak more freely without having my conscious freaking out about who may be reading my assignments. After researching how anonymous profiles can affect behaviour for my collaborative essay, it was interesting to get a first-hand experience from using one. Like many others, I found it liberating, felt like I had free reign to write my thoughts about certain subjects without having any concerns on the feedback. Overall, the whole Wikibooks experience was intriguing as it allowed for a greater collaboration with other classmates and it added further appetite to my understanding on how digital media platforms work. Abfunkalicious (discuss • contribs) 14:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: DISCUSSION, ENGAGEMENT, CONTRIBS

 * Engagement on discussion pages of this standard attain the following grade descriptor for contribs. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this 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:
 * Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory contributions may try to relate an idea from the module to an original example, but might not be very convincing. They may waste space on synopsis or description, rather than making a point. They may have spelling or grammatical errors and typos. They might not demonstrate more than a single quick pass at the assignment, informed only by lecture and/or cursory reading. They may suggest reading but not thinking (or indeed the reverse) and will have little justification for ideas offered on Discussion Pages. The wiki markup formatting will need some work.

Students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.


 * This was clearly not the case here – only 7 days registered as having logged a contrib. However, when you did engage, these seemed to be significant entries in terms of moving the project forward.

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: o	Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial” o	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


 * Several contribs registered as being under 1000 characters, only one classed “substantial”.

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


 * This was the strongest element of your contribution. You clearly pushed your arguments and encouraged others to comment/respond.

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


 * There was a little organisation of the discussion page on your part.

•	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.


 * You conducted yourself well.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly corresponds 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.

Good. Among other things, good entries 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 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. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.


 * Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would have made a considerable difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, if a little brief. Remember that the comments are "worth" as much as posts themselves. The reason for this is not only to help encourage discussion (a key element of wiki collaboration!) but also to get you to reflect upon your own work. This can all, of course be used to fuel ideas that might form part of your project work. I like that you have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!) and also that you are beginning to discuss 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: Good.


 * Argument and analysis: Good


 * Presentation: could have made more use of wiki markup and organisational skills, but some effort to use external and interwiki links.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 10:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)