User talk:Absterloutely

Week One: Online visibility
Questions about visibility, when related to the online environment we inhabit as now more than just a parallel dimension to the ‘real’, should be inclusive of concepts such as the constructed character of personality, authenticity, exposition and awareness. If, as Shelley Turkle made an attempt to formulate in her works, our online lives are now seamlessly mixed with our offline ones, these are key concepts to interrogate in order to map out the ways in which we select, sometimes create, those aspects of ourselves we decide to make visible to others via Internet.

For what regards my own experience, I have always been quite distressed about the possibility offered by social media platforms to post content which relates intimately to what constitutes, in my opinion, one’s private life. As Facebook became a big thing among my peers when I was a teen, I noticed how it was mainly used to get something to gossip about; thirteen-year-olds can be cruel and I did not find any attractiveness in giving people what I thought as opportunities to have a laugh about me. That sense of awkwardness and shame related to content posted with my full name and details kept me back from creating profiles which directly referred to myself personally. On the other hand, the online environment with its flourishing of communities still fascinated me, and I realized that I could have had a meaningful power over choosing how to participate in them. Since most of my interest was drawn towards platforms like Tumblr, DeviantArt, Flickr and others that focus on the sharing of user-generated content and – some more explicitly than others – especially of artistic quality, there was no need to share personal biographical events or facts of my life. These websites’ designated purposes already established some guidelines – however shifting and alterable – to what kind of content would or would not fall into some broad categorization and catch the interest of other users, thus opening up the possibility of getting feedback. The nature of the other users’ responses, I discovered, was of secondary importance behind the plain fact of having attracted someone’s attention: you made yourself visible in a overabundant crowd of content and someone looked back at you. A special kind of pleasure derived from being in control of how my personality could just transpire from my works, comments and communications with others – it did not matter who I actually am in real life, but what aspects of myself I decided to openly share, suggest through a piece of writing or a drawing, or completely alter. I was not playing at being someone else, but I was in power to make others see only what I thought relevant to share, and I made myself visible in those aspects that the other users could find interesting and benefit from.

The degree of anonymity these platforms allowed made possible for me to still be part of online communities in a way that I considered useful and inspirational, in addition to maintaining a strong sense of awareness over the content I was posting.Absterloutely (discuss • contribs) 21:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Hi Absterloutely.

This post is a really well written and interesting take on how the popularity of Facebook has impacted your life and online presence. You link your argument particularly well to Turkle’s idea that online and offline now seamlessly flow into each other.

Just like you, I was very confused about the hype that Facebook was producing when the social media platform started to become popular in my mid-teens. For me it did not make much sense, why anyone would share ‘random’ things with their ‘friends’. Firstly, because some things seemed extremely private. Secondly, because I did not see why it would be of anyone’s interest. And probably most importantly, thirdly, most of the ‘friends’ on Facebook were not friends from offline life. This had the result that comments were mostly of nasty nature, which made me ‘un-friend’ said people. Furthermore, I never used my full name on Facebook in order to avoid the profile being connected to myself. How did or do you deal with the sometimes lack of control you have of others sharing information about you?

The ‘story’ of my online presence is also similar to yours. Despite not understanding the trend of sharing of personal information on Facebook, I signed up to platforms that promote user-generated content, such as Tumblr, to share my (very personal) opinions and creations with other fans. I, too, feel like, despite never using my real name or sharing any biographical identifiable information, that I am more of my true self on these platforms than I am on Facebook. In a way I recreate my offline persona online. How would you say your interaction with other users and contributing to user-generated content platforms creates a seamlessness between offline and online? Or, would you say that because you do not share identifiable data, it is not as seamless as Turkle argues?

I would further suggest that your and my online experience is not only seamless but fits Lovink’s notion of having to be one’s truest self online. Or would you disagree, as your minimal presence on Facebook does not reflect your offline character?

Lastly, as you are building on Turkle’s arguments it would be helpful to link to your source or create a Reference List. That way people can trace back the steps you have taken.

All in all, this is a great and super interesting post.

MaryCastoridae56 (discuss • contribs) 16:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I realize I am quite late in responding to your detailed and in-depth comment. I apologize for that, since you clearly made time to attentively read my entry and articulate and interesting contribution to it. So, I shall try to address your questions now. In relation to your question about how do I perceive my online presence as seamlessly intertwine with my real life, there is quite a complicated anwer I shall try to make as clear as possible, since it also seems that we have very similar experiences of our user-generated content. Like you do, I employ online platform to share very personal content, but here the notion of 'personal' is quite deviating from one of 'private': I do not post pictures of myself, or anything that explicitly refers to my offline persona. Instead, I use these platforms to share my drawings - sketches, works in progress and complete works - as well as short stories in dedicated websites. I think you can understand how this type of content relates to my 'own truest self' more than a picture of my newest shoes posted on Facebook, as it addresses parts of my own life and conscience to a completely different level. Furthermore, thanks to this extremely personal type of content, I was able to become intensely engaged with other users that gave me attentive feedback: for example, I met one of the persons I consider closest to myself because of a collection of short stories I posted in a fanfiction website that also had a small section dedicated to original contributions: it still fascinates me how our conversations as complete strangers started off because of something so personal I very seldom share with friends I have in real life. In addition to that, further conversations and exchanges with this person resulted in discovering that we lived very close to each other - and therefore we also became friends in our off-line lives. Another example of how intertwined my online contributions and my real life are is that I really value the feedback I get in these platforms, and not only I intend it as a form of encouragement but I also do draw further inspiration from it. I would definitely say, then, that the mere fact of not using my real name online does not entail a shallow use of Internet, but it represents for me the opportunity to make visible a part of myself I struggle to share with others.

Trues self is not something that can be easily summed up. I think that the idea of others' true being is always partial and not exhaustive, but this regards 'real life' as well as online presence. I hold the opinion that we always do try and construct the way people we encounter can perceive us - the difference could be that in our online life we have a higher degree of control to it. Thank you for your positive comment and especially for spotting the weaknessess of my entry, I took them into account in writing my second one, the annotated bibliography, because I thought they were on point end extremely useful to improve my contibutions to WikiBook.

Absterloutely (discuss • contribs) 18:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Week Two: Annotated Bibliography
Tolson, A. (2010). A new authenticity? Communicative practices on YouTube. Critical Discourse Studies, 7 (4), pp. 277-289 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17405904.2010.511834

Andrew Tolson, a Media and Communication professor at the University of Leicester, explores a notion of ‘authenticity’ formulated in the context of the communicative practices he detected on the video-sharing platform of YouTube, and especially on a specific type of content which constitutes one its features: vlogs.

In this article, he closely analyzes the modes of speech and address of audiences which YouTubers employ in their videos, contextualizing his approach within a wide theoretical background and discourse. Being YouTube a feature in the ‘post-television’ landscape, it appears to promote a democratic engagement with its content: Tolson argues that, while users have gained the freedom to make their own connections within the web of shared content and whether or not to engage with it through live comments, YouTubers’ communicative practices and self-promotional aims on the one hand link back to broadcast talks and, on the other, suggest that the platform “may be doing little more than creating another space for the sort of creative engagement with consumer culture” (p.12).

The article especially draws its strength from a seamless inclusion of theoretical debates: Tolson’s argumentations are made to resonate with a corpus of studies which ranges from the Frankfurt School’s early approach on art and popular culture in the era of industrial mass reproduction, and Dyer (1991) and Marshall (1997)’s researches on celebrities and stardom, two theories which explore the relatively recent developments of alternative media platforms and if and to what extent these challenge the dominant discourse and practices of mainstream media. ‘Authenticity’, in this context, works as a parameter through which it is possible to investigate the apparent novelty YouTube represents, especially in relation to the audiences’ response and emotional engagement with other ordinary people which gained some sort of celebrity statutes.

Possible limitations to Tolson’s article are to be found in the restricted range of examples of YouTube mode of communication he actually analyses and the fact that the publication is now almost a decade old. In spite of this, I still think that this piece constitutes a valid starting point to think about the rhetorical practices and their effect in the context of such platform, which is going to be the issue I plan to focus on within the Collaborative Essay. Furthermore, I think it would be interesting to try and balance these ideas with Clay Shirky’s notion of creative contents with civic purposes as explored in his Cognitive surplus: creativity and generosity in a connected age (2010). Absterloutely (discuss • contribs) 09:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Hi Absterloutely!

This is a very well written and detailed annotated bibliography. I think that the article, despite being eight years old, is still very topical as there are still debates about a ‘post-television’ landscape. It is a complicated topic, interlinking many theories such as participation, online communities and consumer culture. Albeit, you summarise Tolson’s main argument and approach really well. I was wondering if you agree with Tolson’s argument that on the one hand it creates freedom for the user but also is heavily connected to consumer culture and notions of self-promotion? If you remember, I have also commented on your first Wiki entry, where you discussed how you are a content creator yourself. So, do you participate or even create content on YouTube as well and this way have personal experience of the phenomena that Tolson describes? If not, what are the reasons for you not to be a participant on YouTube? Furthermore, how do you feel about the suggested ‘authenticity’ of content on YouTube?

Additionally, I have, a few suggestions: Firstly, you have done a very great job summarising the article, but I think annotated bibliographies are usually around 100-200 words, whereas yours is at around 400. So, I would suggest trying to keep it briefer in the future, if possible. Secondly, It might also be useful to mention which topic or theme your group is dealing with for your collaborative essay. Lastly, I have spotted a small spelling mistake in the sentence where you discuss which theorists Tolson draws on. I will correct the mistake for you. Despite all this, your annotated bibliography draws not only well from the article itself but you also show the ability to link it to other theories such as Shirky’s notion of civic purpose. This demonstrates your awareness of the wider context and other academic sources. Is there a specific reason why you chose Tolson’s piece over Shirky’s for your annotated bibliography?

All in all, this is a very well written and detailed annotated bibliography.

MaryCastoridae56 (discuss • contribs) 13:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Hi MaryCastoridae56 (interesting nickname, by the way),

thank you for taking the time to so attentively read and comment my annotated bibliography. About the length of this entry, I admit I was in doubt about how many characters we were supposed to use, as I read on the Wiki Exercise Sheet, on Canvas, that each entry should be between 2500 and 3000. It is probably my mistake, but even so I found the article so compelling that fewer characters would not have been enough to try and convey its complexity and freshness of approach. I really recommend that you have a look at it, since it also includes a list of references you might find useful for your own group project. As for your question about whether do I agree with Tolson's argument, the more I read on the topic of Always-on culture and social practices related to connectivity, the more I see this dichotomy grow in complexity: user-generated content is never purely delivered from one to another, but undergoes a process of refinement and mediation that we must take into consideration when we think about a notion of freedom in regards to the online environment. Being such content so constructed and made - either more strictly or more loosely - to adhere to specific modes of production, presentation, performance and distribution, I hold the opinion that it is extremely relevant to keep in mind its implication of a consumer culture where self-promotion is becoming salient. Something that would be interesting to elaborate on would be the seemingly existing gap between users which intentionally exploits these modes and might end up building a career thanks to that, and others users which are mostly emulating them to no higher purpose than obtaining visibility, and nothing more than that.

I am not part of the YouTube community, and I would say I have a very shallow experience of its content which is why I am quite excited about this project as a way to put my mind on something I never carefully questioned. The possibility of being a vlogger does not really fascinate me for now, but YouTube would be a useful platform if I ever started generating video contents not about myself as a person, but about what I enjoy doing and already sharing in other platforms.

I think that YouTube content might be defined as “authentic” only through a very limited notion of authenticity. Since, as I mentioned, the content we consume is being mediated and constructed to some degree, I would say that it is authentic in the sense that sometimes vloggers employs specific strategies to conform to a set of practices that construct an aura of authenticity for the viewer. An article I recently read address this problematic quite specifically, if not in an exhaustive way: ‘Imagining others more complexly’: celebrity and the ideology of fame among YouTube’s ‘Nerdfighteria’, by Daniel R. Smith (2016).

Lastly, I choose Tolson's article over Shirky's book because it specifically addresses YouTube, which is the platform that my group and I chose to focus on for the collaborative essay, and the communicative practices employed by vloggers, which is the angle I am going to explore for what concerns my contribution to the group project.

Again, thank you for your comment and for your suggestion. And also for correcting the spelling mistake. I am actually surprised there was only one. Absterloutely (discuss • contribs) 21:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Absterloutely! Thank you for your reply and liking my nickname. It took me quite long to decide on it and it has a ‘deeper’ meaning but explaining this would maybe reveal too much about my real name and as you might remember from my comment on your first Wiki Exercise, I try to be as private or rather unidentifiable online as I can. You have a very interesting nickname yourself.

I completely understand how it might be difficult to summarise a really complex and maybe even long article in just 100-200 words for an annotated bibliography. I will definitely give the article a read since, as you said, it is highly relevant to Always-on Culture. It is true that you cannot really split social practices into the binaries of user-generated content and its receivers (as you cannot do with most things I have found). I completely agree that there is always a process of mediation, not the least because of complex search and suggestion algorithms. Especially the latter has huge impacts on freedom. To give an example from my own life: I am very interested in LGBT+ related content and am subscribed to many content creators that do (amongst other things) educational and informative videos. However, quite recently I had to turn on the notifications for their channels as often their videos (mostly the more informative ones) would not show up in my subscription box. I always thought that subscription boxes were just timeline based, but there is probably a complex variety of algorithm pushing certain kinds of content over other. Thus, this eliminates the freedom of these content creators to reach even their subscribers (through the subscription box). This then also feeds into the self-promotion aspect of YouTube. A certain custom has been established that content creators will ask you to like, subscribe and turn on notifications at the end of their videos. You also mention the differences between content creators that have chosen YouTube as their path of career and those who only do so for visibility. I personally think that again this is not a straight forward dichotomy, as for example some content creators might have many different revenue streams, with profit from advertisement from their YouTube videos being only one of them. Additionally, many content creators do not make it visible whether they rely on YouTube revenue and intentionally exploit the platform for their own gain or are just users generating content like many smaller or less successful creators.

You say that you are not part of the YouTube community because you have had experiences of shallow content. Could you specify what you mean by this? What did the content look/ sound like to give you the impression that it is shallow? I was quite excited to read the title of the article that you have suggested, as I quite enjoy watching YouTube videos by John and Hank Green. I will definitely give the article a read. The more I think about how, to what extent and also why content on YouTube and many if not most other platforms, is mediated, the more I question if there even is such a thing as ‘authenticity’ online. This is because even on things like YouNow, where you are seemingly presented with unedited and unframed content, camera position, outfits and interactions are never unintentional. So, and this might be contentious, I would argue that everything we do online is presented through some kind of filter. What do you think?

Your collaborative essay sounds really interesting and I am looking forward to reading it. Do you have a link to your discussion page? Then I could visit your groups’ discussion page and leave a comment or suggestion as well as getting to know your groups’ topic a bit better. Thank you again for replying to my comment and you are welcome for the correction of the small mistake. I think this is one of the major advantages of the Wiki platform: everyone can quickly fix things that one might have overlooked in a rush.

MaryCastoridae56 (discuss • contribs) 10:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC) Hi MaryCastoridae56, What you said about content creators on YouTube that now got into the widespread habit to suggest that their subscibers turn on the notifications for their channel is something I just recently noticed while I was binge watching Nikkietutorials' videos. It is interesting to notice these kind of shift in their communicative practices, since they also must have been paying attention to how their content was spread across the platform and received, and altered their performances upon that. This link to one of your questions, where you asked me to further explain my experience of YouTube - I probably expressed myself incorrectly, but I did not mean that I only came across shallow content. What I meant is that my own way of using the platform is rather shallow: I mainly use it to listen to music, watch makeup tutorials (about which I am absolutely crazy, I could literally spend hours on those for the sheer pleasure to look at people painting their faces layer after layer) and I guess that this is pretty much it. You see, I never subscribed to a channel or followed a vlogger with much passion, I mostly just randomly came across content I could be intereset to consume or following another person's suggestion. I do not engage with videos and other users through the comment section: no matter how much a vlog might be thought-provoking and intellectually challenging to me, I just did not feel eager to share that engagement with other users. There is no doubt that I came across some videos I really enjoyed, whether because their entertainment value or because they discussed something I found relevant and interesting, only my participation within the platform and its community has never been as active as YouTube allows its users to be. It is just now that I am starting to pay attention to its dynamics, and in my research I came across some interesting theories about para-social relationships which people engage in through their experience with media personalities: most of these theories have been formulated looking at what we can problematically define 'old media', so I am trying and see to what extent they can be applied to YouTube dynamics. Since the theoretic panorama has been so much complicated by media convergence, transmediality and a more active user participation in the online environment, I am aware that drawing sharp definitions is not going to lead to a deeper understanding of it. When I made a distinction between vloggers that can be consciously using YouTube as a launching platform for a career and others that do not, I do not mean that there is a neat distinctions between those two set categories, and clearly there are so many factors contributing to a creator' use of the platform that my point was simply to distinguish between creators that - in my opinion - more consciously construct their performance and a relationship with the community of followers which forms around them. This might of course be the result of a long permanence on the platform, within which these 'celebrities' found a way to make their channel unique and profitable; furthermore, their consinstent presence in the platform results in, as you say, forms of self promotion I am looking forward to explore in my section of the collaborative essays, since I find extremely intriguing to look at how this is done through rhetoric and communicative devices. I am sorry if my reply is excessively long, I am trying to cover everything you mentioned as I found it to be a formative discussion. In our exchanges I mentioned several times that I think there is a certain degree of constructiveness - therefore: inauthenticity - in all online content; language is definitely one of the ways in which online performances are filtered through, wheter we think about phrases and modes of expressions that became “viral” or simply widespread and used in context that have no relation to their original use thanks to the Internet (for example, calling a partner “bae” even when English is not one's first language, among so many others) or, as I am especially interested in, communicative practices at work. Thank you for your reply, I will leave with you the link for my group's discussion page here. We will soon post more content, as in right now you will not find much yet. Apparently we are still more into the romantic practice of handwriting all our notes. Absterloutely (discuss • contribs) 15:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello !

Thank you for your reply and engagement with my comment.

It is very interesting that you only noticed the shift in behaviour of content creators through extensive interaction with their videos that goes quite far into the past. I myself did not notice the shift in behaviour or change of algorithm until one YouTuber themselves pointed it out. I had stumbled across that specific video only by accident as their content was not showing up in my subscription box anymore. As, up to that point, I was relying on the subscription box to get all of the content shown to me on a time line basis, I simply assumed that they had ‘taken a break from content creation’ and not that their content was not being shown anymore.

I just realised that this trend of ‘taking a break from YouTube’ is also very interesting and could be discussed and related to disconnectivity. Many content creators (at least that I watch) still consider it a hobby and do not live of the revenue. Thus, they do not ‘owe’ anyone any (regularly) uploaded content, or any specific form of content. Albeit, they still deem it necessary to not only announce their break or change of content or uploading schedule, but also to give extensive reasons for it. It feels like being only somewhat popular on YouTube also entails that you have to have regular content. What do you think about this?

Thank you for clarifying how you engage with YouTube. My engagement with/ use of (and this seems to be a reoccurring theme) the platform is really similar to yours in some ways. Yes, I do subscribe to channels, but I did this initially so I would not have to search for content creators that interested me manually. (Also, I had already created a YouTube account way before that for another reason, so I thought why not make use of it?!) And yes, I do have certain kinds of creators that I watch regularly but this is mostly due to their educational or entertaining videos. But I do not think that I have ever commented on a video and I never shared videos that I enjoyed on social media (rather if I thought a specific person would enjoy the video too I would forward the link to the video to them). And I most certainly do not upload any videos of my own. So maybe one can call my engagement with YouTube quite shallow in that sense too then.

The para-social relationships that people engage with sounds like a very interesting field of study. I would be very interested to hear more about it from you and even get some reading suggestions.

I completely agree that there can be no clear distinction made between types of content creators as they are all different and variant within themselves. It is quite interesting though that there is the trend of, for the lack of a better word, ‘old YouTubers’. I am not sure whether this is because of the content I watch or the algorithm never showing me any other content, but most ‘successful’ and entangled into the platform itself YouTubers have been creating content for a very long time. I.e. Tyler Oakley or John and Hank Green. So maybe a notion of ‘having grown (up)’ with the platform is one way to success?

Do not worry. My answers always seem to be overly long too. But I really much enjoy our discussions as we often seem to have similar but not completely agreeing opinions on ideas. Our interaction has definitely made me think about new and different concepts, some of which I might be able to use in my collaborative essay as well.

It is true that language in and of itself is a huge way we express ourselves. I myself have noticed that I am using ‘internet appropriate language’ i.e. tagging when positing online. Have you noticed this in yourself too?

I will definitely visit your discussion page some time soon. And I too had to go about digitising all of my notes for this module. I am very much tethered to my devices in most aspects of my life but when it comes to note taking and studying nothing beats the old pen and paper. I just simply have to hand write stuff to remember it.

I am looking forward to your answer and thank you for your reply again.

MaryCastoridae56 (discuss • contribs) 16:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC) 'evening, , taking into account that popular YouTubers - but I would say, every vlogger or online creator that aims to be consistently and increasignly visible for his or her follower as well as more potential enthusiasts - would dedicate a specific upload to or clearly stress the fact they are going to take a break suggests a lot about how a consistent streaming of content adds up to building an “Always-on” presence. I think that obtaining and most importantly maintaining this kind of presence requires creators not only to keep on uploading content, but also to constantly aim for improvement and an ever growing dissemination across multiple platforms. It seems to me that it has become a widespread practice that the vloggers should encourage their audience to follow them not only on YouTube, but also on other social media where they could find extra content related to the videos, or even other kinds of material which I think results in the viewers' increased perception of these creators as 360° persons - that is: authentic and complex others, more than one-dimensional figures they can only relate to for a specific need. As for another of your questions, I think this can be linked to an observation of certain communicative practices vloggers have developed but, most likely, borrowed from other users that proved they could be successful. In light of this, referring to an 'old class' of YouTubers might definitely be useful for new creators to get an idea of what a potential audience might demand of them. I read that you are interested about the topic of para-social relationships: in my group's page for the Collaborative Essay I inserted the links to some journal articles which explores such concept; you can find them in the Bibliography section. There is no doubt that to some extent the Internet language has influenced the ways I happen to express myself in a variety of different context. As you also have noticed, I find myself answering to texts via gifs or emojis very frequently, and I also noticed that in conversations with friends one would mention a meme that would represent 'the perfect reaction' to what someone else have said. I find it quite fascinating. Memes and other internet modes of expressions should be explained through language and emotions, and instead the opposite is happening more and more consistently. Thank you for taking the time on further commenting on my entry, I appreciate your inputs and insight very much. Absterloutely (discuss • contribs) 19:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello !

Thank you for your comment. I have not yet considered how the consistency in upload schedule and announced breaks might be a large part of the Always-on Culture. Thank you for flagging this up. I completely agree that YouTubers often strive to build their public image and character by trying to get people as involved into their lives as possible. I do also think that technical and content improvement play a large role in this. It is sad to admit but I would definitely say that I prefer watching a video with HD image quality and balanced lighting. However, this also encourages people to actually engage with the way they deliver their content. I personally find important too, because creators advance their technical and creative knowledge that way and change, hopefully for the better. Albeit, less popular content creators might not be able to afford the equipment that large YouTubers have.

Thank you for directing me towards suggested reading about para-social relationships on your essay page.

I agree that the trend of just mentioning a meme orally when in a face to face conversation is odd. I do not do this very often. It might be because I am not that into meme culture or just because when I am talking in English, which is not my native language, I have many years of school English engrained into me. And back in school it was important to talk proper. And when I am speaking my mother tongue, English terms or sentence structures often slip their way in. If I then would also use memes to communicate, I would probably loose everyone.

Thank you for your further comment and suggestions too. MaryCastoridae56 (discuss • contribs) 11:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The idea that YouTubers use specific modes of speech when addressing audiences is one that, personally, I just have never considered. Despite this, it seems perfectly reasonable, and makes a lot of sense to consider. Especially as, even without realising, even personal blogs are scripted to an extent. Added to that, there are even scripted shows and movies that are now exclusive in being content made for YouTube, regardless of budget or distributor. There is still that engagement with the consumer, the need to sell yourself in order to maintain subscribers, and the use of diction is fundamentally the deciding factor in who stays on your page and who does not come back. Thank you for opening this perspective in viewing videos, especially regarding YouTube. The way you actively linked the ideas of Tolson with that of Shirky demonstrates that you are actively thinking about the connections between ideas and concepts, reinforcing a that you have an string understanding of the concepts you discuss. The bibliography was insightful and explained very well. I like that you are aware of possible limitations, with it being the age of the article, but like you mention this can actually be a great starting point into further ideas behind communicative practices within the 'vlogging sphere'. Smbromley (discuss • contribs) 20:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I really like this concept of different types of speech patterns utilized by Youtubers. This is partially what I study back home at university in the US so this was a very interesting for me to read. I am definitely going to go read this for myself! I think this will be a great addition to our paper because how different bloggers chose to represent themselves and speak to their audiences. So much of vlogging is showing your life to an assumed audience. Obviously, there are different types of vlogs, from sitting in their bedrooms talking to a camera to taping their entire lives from what they eat for breakfast and their nighttime routine. Rhetoric is such an important aspect to conversations about Youtube and by extension then, our topic of always on. How Youtubers tend to present their lives could be a huge factor in the idea of them being always on. This is something that I look forward to exploring in our paper and overall, I really enjoyed your commentary and I will be seeking out this article myself for further insight! Cls00085 (discuss • contribs) 22:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC) Hi Claire, I share your interest for this specific angle on the topic of Always-on culture in relation to the phenomenon of vlogging we are going to explore within the YouTube platform. I think your previous studies will be extremely useful to direct my further research into it, would you recommend any source or notion I should look up? I think you will find the article I based my annotated bibliography on quite an useful start on the topic of the communicative practices which vloggers may be employing in the content they upload, specifically as it points out for the reader that such a content must always be thought of as of mediated quality. Thank you for your useful comment, I really appreciate your contribution and hope that it will lead to further development for or research. Absterloutely (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Exercise four: reflexive account
At the start of this course of Digital Media and Culture at the University of Stirling, the only wiki platform I was acquainted with was Wikipedia. Not only was I totally unaware of all its related projects, but throughout the whole duration of my studies I have been told by my teachers not to rely on information I would find there, for it could only be thought as an initial suggestion for further researches based on actual academic resources. The time when one of my classmates from middle school edited composer Richard Strauss’ Wikipedia page and we all ended up printing out a research full of ridiculous biographical events and words I better leave out of this entry is still fresh in my mind. WikiBooks, like all others wiki platforms, allow users to create an account through which they are able to create, contribute to and edit content as they please: this peculiar feature entails a certain responsibility and awareness of how one decides to participate in the community in respect to everyone else that might read and engage with its content. While it is true that content which does not follow the general rules of the platform – which is explicitly dedicated to user-generated textbooks, manuals and annotated accounts on existing literature or publications in general – can get signalled and eliminated, it is a commonplace assumption that relying on this type of contribution requires a leap of faith. In spite of the fact that WikiBooks does not require its contributors to be scholars in their subject matters, it proves an interesting opportunity for students and independent researchers to engage in the production of textbooks exploring their own level of understanding of and preparation on a subject, and to test their knowledge and ability with the other platform’s users thanks to the editing and comment features. Peer reviewing and reworking on one’s content proves a significant element for the development of a text in its best finalisation, and that is something I experienced for the first time through the duration of the Collaborative Essay project. Being the only member of my group whose native language is not English, it usually requires me an additional effort to express myself in a way that is not only formulated correctly in regards to an academic context, but also to effectively communicate with my peers from the initial step of planning a project, exchanging ideas and tips on the use of the platform, understanding its peculiar features i.e. the wiki MarkUp to ultimately compose a final draft of each of ours contributions. In this regard, I found extremely helpful the confrontation and discussion with other members of the community: sharing resources, hints and suggestions not only with my group but also visiting and engaging with my classmates’ pages made the processes of research and composition much faster and more interactive, something I did not have the chance to experiment with in any other university related assignment. Lastly, I am rather confident that a conscious use of such platform, including the other wiki projects, helps the building of an informed, collaborative and engaging online community, giving chances for critical thinking and contributions beyond content that could be purely tagged as creative, for certain parameters and qualitative criteria are set within the platforms. Absterloutely (discuss • contribs) 19:08, 12 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:
 * Poor. Among other things, poor contributions may just offer links without real comment or apparent point. They may offer nothing more than poor-quality synopsis or description of material of dubious relevance. They may have serious clarity problems (including dead links, random graphics) which affect comprehension (or even worse, admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement). They might be off-topic, private trivia, or of unclear relevance. The wiki markup formatting will be of a poor standard.

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 6 days registered as having logged a contrib. the two largest contribs by far were cut and paste jobs of draft work for the essay page, and I’ve discounted these as I can’t assess you for the same work twice. There are a few smaller contribs that suggest that, 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, with only one classed “substantial” – some of these were discursive and meaningful, but it’s largely a case of too little, too late.

•	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 theweakest element of your contribution. Not much evidence to suggest that you 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 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, as far as the evidence suggests.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:31, 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:


 * 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 is really good work. Your contribs to user discussion are extensive, sustained throughout the project period, and attempt to solicit engagement from other users. You demonstrate a critical awareness of several underlying issues, and you are able to articulate this awareness via drawing from relevant literature. Your responses to other people’s posts are especially good. I like that you have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion. This is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about. You have also 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.


 * You do make some use of the wiki markup functionality for formatting, embedding links and so on, but I think that making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have 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 have made a difference. I am being picky here – this is excellent work.

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


 * 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. Again excellent.


 * Presentation: see above comment on use of wiki markup and organisational skills.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)