User talk:AlwaysCarryingBagpack

Hi I am Spyros and I am using Wikibooks for an assessed project on the module Digital Media and Culture (2019)AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 17:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: To what extent are my online and offline identities aligned?
The advent of the internet introduced new opportunities for us human beings. The web throbbed with new social worlds where each individual could participate by creating their own online identity. "Online the plain represented themselves as glamorous, the old as young, the young as older". My personal engagement with social networks begun around 2010, when I first created my Facebook account. Today, 9 years later, I try as much as possible to present my online identity exactly as my true self. I am definitely not considered the most social person but online that does not seem to change at all. When interacting with other people online I believe I act the same as I would in real life. I keep a small number of friends, which is consisted only by people that I know and have spoken with before, in person. But that was not always the case. Back when I first started interacting on social media I was in junior high school. I was mostly concerned about the number of friends that I had on Facebook and the number of likes that my photographs would receive. At that age it is very common for young people to feel this way. But even though I had different interests back then, mostly on how I would present myself, the way that I used to interact with others on the platform has not changed today. There is a desire to make an impression and even maybe create an alternative self, appropriate for the people with which we share the same platform, our audience. Maybe even the self that they expect from us. Ibrahim states that this self is imaginary and thus inauthentic. Online we are given the opportunity to re-create our identity but also to form social connections through an ideal self. But the formation of this ideal self is heavily dependent on how other people online perceive us. Their gaze upon us has an intrinsic power and influence that shapes our identity, but most important our perception of ourselves in the community. The feedback that we constantly receive from others is significant on the construction of the self. Furthermore, this feedback contributes to the need of the self to attract public attention and to even seek an audience. The attention fulfills the desire of the self to be distinctive. In the online environment the users can become part of the "celebrity culture by constructing themselves as active personas". The truth is that the structure of our identity, whether that is online or offline, never ceases to develop. As we move forward and experience the world, that structure is constantly being re-shaped. As Sherry Turkle states, "in the course of a life, we never 'graduate' from working on identity; we simply rework it with the materials at hand". AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 11:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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

 * Joinson, A. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication:The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 177-192. Retrieved from | Joinson, A. (2001)

In this article Adam Joinson is presenting three series of studies conducted to examine whether computer mediated communication (CMC) is characterised with higher levels of self-disclosure than Face to Face (FtF) interactions and to what extent the combination of private and public self-awareness affects self-disclosure on CMC. In the first study Joinson compares the results of CMC and FtF discussions on a given dilemma. Study two is conducted through CMC and is constructed in two condition; anonymous (text only) and non-anonymous with the use of video cameras where participants could watch eachother in real time. Study three took place in an experimentally manipulated space in order to influence self-awareness and the impact of self-disclosure in the different conditions was measured. The results of these studies showed that CMC encourages more self-disclosure than FtF interaction as well as that participants tended to disclose more information while being visually anonymous. Also the combination of heightened private/reduced public self-awareness can be involved in this effect. Although this research demonstrates plenty of strengths, a number of limitations are also present. Joinson suggests that it might have underestimated the amount of disclosure in CMC discussions through the recruitment of same-sex dyads. Furthermore the absence of categorisation of self-disclosure according  to content could bear limitations. However, further research in this area is needed to support findings of this study. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 11:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise#4: Collaborative Essay Critical Evaluation-What ARE Wikis?
Anyone who has ever been online can clearly tell that not all online platforms are the same. That is because online platforms are categorised in different genres, exactly as films and novels, according to the type of text they demonstrate. A is a genre that basically works as "a tool for collaborative editing of a web page". Wikis are knowledge platforms open to anyone online and invite people to contribute to the creation of new material. They constitute of a number of different platforms, such as, that consists of digital textbooks created for educational purposes, and also the well known to everyone. "Wikipedia aims at encyclopedianess, the state or quality of being an " and its purpose is to provide information on all branches of knowledge, but at the same time suggests "that encyclopedic knowledge is never complete" and that that is why it constantly invites members to edit articles. Wikis also come with a number of policies and guidelines that the contributors must follow. These are a neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research. That means "that articles must not take sides, but rather should explain the sides, fairly and without bias". The external resources must be reliable and no original thought should be published. When it comes to visibility, any activity produced on wiki platforms can be imediately traced at the contribution page of the user, even without them signing after the contribution. However, people are able to edit wiki pages without signing in the platform but again their is traced by specially programmed. Taking a look at the talk pages in any wiki platform we identify community at work. People reward others on the platform for their skills and for creating new articles, they work together to revert acts of, and. "Wikis strive for the impersonal, everyone collaborating to produce a common product that has none of their names on it". But wiki discussion pages are not always a utopia. Often edit wars break out between users and constant controversies arrise. From my own experience on a Wikibook group project I have mostly positive feeling. There were high levels of collaboration and other users rewarded signs of good work and were always willing to help others in need, as well as showed great efforts of teamwork. Each different platform creates its own community were people recognise eachother's work. Greg Myers says that "users of those texts don't just create, they create a social world".

Wikis include an abundance of information that can be accessed by everyone at any time but simultaneously give the opportunity to users to create and edit content, thus being a big contribution to. But even though they have those privileges online emancipation can not be completely achieved. This is due to the policy of no original thought, which means that the users do not have the freedom to express their own ideas and also to the fact that freedom of speech can many times have negative effects on the platform. Administrators and programmed bots are always able to revert acts of flaming and even block users from certain communities. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 08:36, 5 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:
 * Excellent. Among other things, contributions 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 formatting, 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 and transparent way on the Discussion Pages. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts, justifying decision-making with transparency. 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 as well as for fellow researchers collaborating. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.

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:
 * Plenty of evidence of engagement with both subject matter and research process throughout the project period. Several, consistent contribs, as well as a large volume of contribs considered substantial according to the above criteria. You have clearly gotten a lot out of this project. Good work!

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

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

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.
 * Excellent

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 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.


 * Although this work is at the lower end of this (high) grade band, so there’s potentially 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. Also, ensuring that you adhere to the set deadlines is really important. Having said all of this, you have submitted what amounts to an excellent, well written, very well researched and well organised portfolio!


 * You making really good use of the wiki functionality and markup which has 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 make a difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are especially good (although the Ex4 peer review element is on the late side).

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


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)