User talk:Aceventura hairdetective

Wiki Exercise #2 A person’s online identity may the same or vastly different from the identity they possess in a real-life encounter. I will continue to analyse a Networked self when compared to in-person self but analysing my own social media presence and compare to peer-reviewed sources that go into greater detail on the network self.

My online presence is different when compared to my face-to-face interaction as is common I only put the aspects of my life that I am fine sharing with people or want people to see. I am more likely to post pictures, posts, videos, etc that I feel reflective myself in a good image, which I believe to be the status quo with almost everyone’s online presence. For myself that mean uploading a film that I helped work on but a more common one that is viewable on the majority of peoples profiles is posting pictures or updates of when they are or were interacting with friends or family face-to-face, as they seems to be an ever growing need to prove on our online presence that we have interacted with people and can prove the time and place, “There is normally a strong interaction between subject and photographer in personal photographs.” (Papacharissi, 2010). There are aspects of both identities which are similar, for instance I tell and share jokes in both presences but jokes that I have on my online presence are checked to make sure I don’t offend anyone, while jokes I tell in a face-to-face interaction, depending in whose company I’m with, might be met with backlash if I posted them on my online presence. My online identity has changed considerably from when it started just over a decade ago, I’m now more willing to share articles and posts whose opinion share whether it be politically or just generally whereas, when I first had an online presence, I cared more about being tagged in pictures with my friends and generally being involved with groups at school outside of the classroom. Though there is this obsession, especially associated with the younger generation, it’s argued that the narcissism of uploading pictures of ourselves and making sure the best image is shown online, isn’t too far from our ancestors who did it by getting their portraits done or by the same way as us, through photograph. “The creation and exhibition of self-profiles can be historically located and is not unique to the new-media environment.” (Ibrahim, 2018). It’s speculated that’s likely that people from the past would be just as likely to use social media in the same way as us if they existed today. Though my various online presences same similarities such as my name, picture etc I’m different about what I show on each of my online presences for instance what I upload and say on Twitter I may not feel comfortable saying on Facebook or a picture I share on Snapchat I may not want to share on Instagram. I think who we have on social media is definitely a influence on what we share on that online presence, as it’s in human nature to want to be a part of the majority and not the minority when it comes to views and ideas. And people are generally influenced in their opinions by peers around them and that is usually multiplied on an online presence as it can be viewed and commented on by people outside of a person’s social circle. There’s a need for everyone to one-up each other on social media to the point where it seems to be a competition of who has the best life with people posting mostly what they feel they have a better version of than most people, whether that be a family, fitness, a talent they excel at etc. Whatever shows them in the best light.

(Aceventura hairdetective (discuss • contribs) 22:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC))

Comments
This is a very well written and thought provoking piece. At the beginning of this article when you talk about only portraying positive aspects of yourself, I think this is something we can all relate to and that it is important that we can acknowledge it. Your point about feeling the need to prove to everyone who follows us online that we have had real life interactions with people is something that I have never though about before and is a very good observation. I wonder if this is because there is almost a shaming culture around spending a lot of time on the internet rather than forcing ourselves into social interactions that we don't necessarily even want to partake in. When you mention that people were having portraits of themselves painted hundreds of years ago, it makes me wonder if it is just human nature at this point. Perhaps it is hard wired into us to want to capture our best aspects and to want others to see that side, similarly to people having having massive portraits of them hanging proudly back in the day. I agree with your comment about different types of content being appropriate for different platforms. Instagram seems to be where people want to boast and brag about how excellent their lives are whereas on twitter people are much more honest and open about how things really are. I really enjoyed this piece, I can definitely relate to a lot of what you have said and I have other things to think about regarding some of the other points you made that I hadn't considered before. Great Work! Silversophie97 (discuss • contribs) 16:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey I think what you've highlighted with the idea of the personal connections between the photographer and their photo's is incredibly relevant especially amidst the 'selfie-generation' whereabouts photography has become vastly widespread and the connection of photographer and image has now become closer with social medias such as Instagram and Snapchat. The connection therefore is incredibly relevant and I commend you for using an academic reference to highlight this theme, I also find that a relevant example of how this theme of self portrait photography has developed greatly throughout time as with the Daguerreotype as self reflective photography in a portrait style has gone beyond that of physical photos to being required on certain social medias and in our everyday lives. Atari Darren (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Annotated Bibliography Exercise (Part B) 

Milkie,M (1999), Social Comparisons, 'Reflected Appraisals, and Mass Media: The Impact of Pervasive Beauty Images on Black and White Girls' Self-Concepts', accessed from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2695857?casa_token=UEzRHVPeJi0AAAAA:TZVAEYVOhnjKkSPvsBZ_wHM5tu3OJdQOo06FEhZGuZ4tB8R5TBqBNvj95r-YN6SlJA6cx4LICp-0m14Mybht7rn1kl1auT2TxaymKOk8-g669kOm50Qn&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

This source centres on a questionnaire asked to girls in American schools, how magazines aimed at them made them feel particularly concerning body image when viewing the models in said magazines. The main point of the source is elaborate on the difference Caucasian and African American women feel they're viewed and portrayed in media and id they feel it has been done correctly. By asking teen girls of multiple ethnicities their views and also the fact that girls from different schools, which belong to different class brackets in terms of its students. There's the similarity, in that girls from different races and income level households saw that the models shown in the magazines and in other forms of media were unrealistic in appearance when compared to them and their friends. Also that African American girls, felt they were not shown as much with the main focus of the models being Caucasian women. The Quantitative self relates to this in that, there's a want to portray your online presence as looking as model-esque as possible as you control through various ways now, such as the angle the photo was taken and also adding lens that can intensify or dull certain features. This is ironic, in that people do know that people in the media have the appearance that not the average person has. We are aware that celebrities for instance, have access to personal trainers, dietary chefs and more to make them look as they do, resources that the average person doesn't have access to. And yet they're is still a need to make our appearance as close to the, often fictional, people we see on various forms of media. (Aceventura hairdetective (discuss • contribs) 11:57, 22 March 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:
 * Contributions of this standard do not address the assignment requirements. They offer little to no engagement with the concerns of the module. They are poorly written. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.

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:
 * little to no evidence of contribution to essay discussion

Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages
 * Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration
 * little to no evidence of contribution to essay discussion
 * Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay
 * little to no evidence of contribution to essay discussion
 * Evidence of peer-review of others’ work
 * little to no evidence of contribution to essay discussion

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * Clear delegation of tasks
 * little to no evidence of contribution to essay discussion
 * Clearly labelled sections and subsections
 * little to no evidence of contribution to essay discussion
 * Contributions are all signed
 * Little or none in evidence

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.
 * Little or no evidence

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:14, 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:


 * Very Poor. Often, entries of this standard are quite brief, are structured poorly and are not spell-checked. They are often irrelevant, and offer little engagement with the concerns of the module or the assignment brief. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be of a very poor standard and as a result it will be difficult for the reader to engage with the discussion.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, if a little brief, but the fact that the final Ex4 piece is missing entirely is problematic and made a considerable difference to the final grade for this portfolio.

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


 * 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


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)