User talk:Amybaird2

 Wiki Exercise 2: 'To what extent are my online and offline identities aligned?' 

I am filling this out for a class project Amybaird2 (discuss• contribs) 08:43, 14th March 2019 (UTC).

I have made this page for a module at university and this exercise is one of my assignments.

Although a persons online identity may just be the same as it is offline, many peoples identities are extremely different. We make ourselves vulnerable in this age of technology as we offer both our private and public lives to others. I will be talking about my own personal online identity and comparing this to peer reviewed sources that examine the relationships people have with their online identity.

My personal online identity represents my persona and personality through pictures, words and videos. Presenting my self online as being out going and active reflects the characteristics of my life that are public. However, online only represents the side of myself that I wish to share with others. Self presentation... hoping to engender positive impressions of them- selves... their flaws unable to identify (Papacharissi,2010).By sharing one side of my personality and life can it be argued that we are all in some aspects catfishes, the illusion of perfecting our online identities to gain appreciation and comments from other users is indeed false persona's of our offline identities. My online presentation is in some ways different from the way I present myself in face- to- face situations as I do not walk around with a filter on, I express my opinions the way I do on twitter and I certainly do not express my emotions unless needed.

Catfishing refers to the construction of 'fake' profile on social networking platform, a profile which does not correspond to a users 'real identity (Lovelock, M, 2017). The perception that Lovelock is expressing here relates back to certain people's way of expressing their selves online it may not be to the extent of creating a fake profile however, photo shopping their-self to look a certain way and by creating a certain identity online just to impress others and build a relationship with other online users. Online identity changes over time due to technology improving and people's personality and their self image online changing. Over time my identity has definitely changed as I have matured and grown older I have learned how to express myself through different platforms, showing more of myself in different ways has shaped my online identity in a different light. For example, I have introduced my own personal blog as part of sharing my identity to a certain community I have made online, I use this to inform people about my fitness journey. Although my platforms have changed they have still remained subtle and about myself. However, it can be argued that many people use this opportunity to form an online identity in relation to their beliefs by forming campaigns. I believe that people have multiple identities as the internet shapes a side of our persona that is uncanny offline. Being able to have multiple online platforms we are able to shape our identity in any way we want to reach their intended audiences.

References:

1. Papacharissi, Z. (2010). A Networked Self: Identity, community and culture on social network sites.

2. Lovelock, M. (2017). Catching a catfish: Constructing the good social media user in reality television. p. 204.

Wiki Exercise 3: Annotated Bibliography B
'''Allen, M. 2012: 'What was Web 2.0? Versions as the dominant mode of internet history'''

In this article Allen explores 2.0 and how versions real or imagined play a role in the creation of historical narratives concerning the internet. He reviews web 2.0 as the marker of a discourse about the nature and purpose of the internet in the recent past. The authors review of the internet history is shown through an in- depth timeline identifying past, present and future advancements of the web identifying what 2.0 was and concluding whether 2.0 is dead. The article is useful and informative to my knowledge as it outlines new paths to consider about Web 1.0, 2.0 and a possible 3.0. The article cleverly helps further my understanding into the possibilities of Web 3.0 and how we have come to this through Web 2.0. The main limitation of this article is since it was made in 2012 the possibility of Web 3.0 will have further developed since then, making the information outdated to an extent and information being interpreted by one individual. Moreover, the author indicates and suggests a new project based on investigations everyday memories of the internet by which individual users create their own histories of online technology. Overall, this article is comparable to the collaborative essay on Web 2.0 because it gives an indicated timeline of how the advancements into the second generation of the world wide web was constructed and informs us into identifying the death of 2.0.

Wiki exercise #4 What are Wikis?
An entry can be added by any user, and edited by any other, is a radical experiment in trust (O'Reilly, 2007,pp. 23) [O'Reilly, Tim, What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business models for the Next Generation of Software. Communications & Strategies, No. 1, p. 17, First Quarter 2007. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1008839]. Wikis is a website developed collaboratively by a community of users, allowing any user to add and edit any content. Nevertheless, Wiki serves as a multi platform including documenting collaboration content, being able to insert images and links and you also have the opportunity to comment on others work making this platform valuable in terms of peer reviewing. The platform allows individuals to write things and also read other peoples work subjectively by being able to edit. Wikibooks provides a platform to carry out collaborative research being able to come together with others and start making discussions with them around your certain area of topic before eventually reaching an agreement on specific content. This collaborative research can be evidently achieved when others can see individuals content but also other peoples feedback and comments making it more simpler to obtain a structured collaborative research process. Wiki technology is being used a lot more in education settings offering students benefits in many areas creating a space online for individuals to utilise as a new way of learning. Munoz an who is a Professor in Marketing states that ''this helps a community to learn by interacting with one another. This type of learning provides not only social interactions.

An example of wikibooks is my own personal experience. For example, the group I was involved in's Debates in Digital Culture2019/web 2.0 discussion page there was a high level of communication used which played a huge part in showing each other research that we had found including links to scholar articles or even images that we had found. Wikibook creates a unit in which a group can come together with ideas and discuss their findings for the same topic you are researching.

Overall, collaboration pages found on wikibooks effectively creates a space where groups can come together and create ownership of their own pieces which visually represents digital commons.

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:
 * 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.

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:
 * the engagement in evidence here is fairly inconsistent, mainly concentrated in the final few days of the project period. This meant that you weren’t left in a position to build significant or substantial contributions over time, although there is one substantial one. That said, there are a few good additions to discussion in here, and you have made some effort to engage overall.

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

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * Clear delegation of tasks
 * Satisfactory
 * Clearly labelled sections and subsections
 * Satisfactory
 * Contributions are all signed
 * Very Poor (mainly in your user and user discussion page)

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.
 * Satisfactory

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:55, 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:


 * Poor. Among other things, poor entries 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.


 * There’s clearly 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. You should also pay much closer attention to the assessment brief and the requirements for each exercise. E.g. the annotated bibliography entry includes a piece that is part of the Week 1 set reading. Also, re: responses to other people’s posts – none undertaken. This would effectively halve your mark for those exercises for which peer-review was required.


 * 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 make a difference. As this stands, the user discussion page is quite disorganised.

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


 * 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 need a fair amount of work to improve.


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)