User talk:And00127

My name is Antonio and i'm doing a project for Digital media and culture#And00127 (discuss • contribs) 14:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: To what extent are my online and offline identities aligned?
Nowadays, with the development and growth of social media within all our societies, the idea that there is a new generation of so called ‘digital natives’ has developed. Indeed, because social media has stabilised in the lives of young people, there is increasing concern that the latter are replacing online and offline interactions and relationships. From a certain point of view, online and offline relationships can be linked together, for example, the set of offline interactions, which includes family, school, work can also be present online. On this topic, a search was made in southern India. When asked about the privacy of the photographs, many people replied that their photos are never shared online. One researcher, named Venkatraman, noted however, that, in reality, ‘offline’ people prefer to send photos to their closest friends via Whatsapp. In theory, Whatsapp is an online platform due to the fact that it is used through a smartphone app, however, these people consider it ‘offline’ because it is not considered to be part of internet. Therefore, basically, the term ‘offline’ refers to the private part of the society while ‘online’ is considered to be public part of the internet (Venkatraman et al. 2016). Most modern societies believe that, in the face of this new technology, the concept of humanity can be lost, as many people and scholars maintain that the use of digital technologies makes members of society lose a piece of themselves. Already in the times of the ancient Greeks, the philosopher Socrates sustained that this new technology could represent a threat to the oral tradition of Greek society and, according to him, education was fundamental since illiteracy was considered as an absence of fundamental ability for human beings. They began to develop the idea that digital technologies reduce our ability to think as well as a form a greater mediation which leads, consequentially, to a loss of originality. For example, unlike online communication, face-to-face communication is subject to mediation and influenced by the ‘label’ regarding appropriate behaviour. According to anthropologists, therefore, online communication can be considered as a change in cultural mediation (Venkatraman et al. 2016). Often, however, the way an individual communicates online is completely different from the way in which he approaches himself in reality. For instance, we take the classic approach with men and women, usually, during the initial phases of knowledge, the individual, that is located behind a keyboard, tends to communicate in a much looser and more spontaneous way. This, because face-to-face communication various factors can come into play and influence such as the shyness or the introverted character of an individual, it can be argued that it is as if each of us had, to a certain extent, a ‘multiple identity’. To conclude, it could be claimed that social media, in general, have brought different contributions to our world because they offer people more opportunities to learn more about daily news and political and cultural events more quickly and, above all, to communicate through an online platform, allowing dialogue even at distance. Nonetheless, on the other hand, the originality of a time was lost when the only way to approach someone was via face-to-face communication.

References Miller, D., Costa, E., Haynes, N., McDonald, T., Nicolescu, R., Sinanan, J., Spyer, J., Venkatraman, S. & Wang, X. (2016) How the World Changed Social Media, London, UK, UCL Press

I found the approach you have given to the text very attractive. You have used interesting examples that have improved the writing. Even so, I think that the reading would be more pleasant if you separated the information into paragraphs. About the content, I think you could have talked more about yourself. It is true that you give good arguments and you reflect deeply on the subject, but it would have been positive if you took advantage of these ideas to describe and comment your online and offline situation. I liked a lot how you finished the text: "the originality of a time was lost when the only way to approach someone was via face-to-face communication". You're right. All advances are positive because they cause society to progress, grow, and be more powerful. But, like everything in life, it has a darker part.

Arnaumh (discuss • contribs) 4:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello And00127! I liked your mini-essay on identities online and offline, but I think you could improve some things. You could have separated the text into paragraphs to better organize ideas and facilitate reading to the reader. You could also have added images related to the text and could have used the Wikipedia reference system. I will be happy to help you if you do not know how to do it. As for the content, I missed you talking about your experience in relation to the subject. I really like the end of your mini rehearsal, but, as Arnaumh says, everything has a downside. I encourage you to keep working like this and I hope you tell me if you need my help!

Alvarocarrena (discuss • contribs) 10:03, 18 March (UTC)

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Lupton, D.(2016).The quantified self. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com pp83-98

In this chapter, Lupton addresses the issue of self-tracking. She focuses more on the concept of privacy, in particular on how our personal data are stored and how they are collected by other actors. Through a series of researches it is possible to argue that the exploitation of personal information often occurs when people use apps or other software, such as, for example, platforms concerning health and physical activity where, once we share our data , our personal information is used by commercial companies to produce medical research and clinical studies of new drugs. Furthermore. the use of these apps is very dangerous even for hackers to access our information, especially when our data is transmitted from a personal device to another database. The scope of this article is to find a series of solutions that can protect our personal data. A strategy developed to avoid the loss of one's own information is that of the " obfuscation" which consists in the production of false and ambiguous data. This article is very useful for making us understand how simple it is to steal our personal information from "digital experts". The main limitation of this article lies in the fact that, as regards the solutions to be adopted against the loss of one's own data, it uses a very generic language and does not address the problem in detail. The author, with this chapter wants to make to understand that the loss of the own personal data can have consequences much more serious that can be expected. For this reason, before sharing your information within the app it is good to know if the protection of your privacy is guaranteed.

WIKIBOOKS AND WHO ARE THE WIKI It's been a while now that technology is dominating and changing our societies. The introduction and birth of the Wikipedia, online platform, has undoubtedly given a twist to our world. Today, when a person has a doubt, it is very difficult for him to do research in library or bookstore to look for encyclopedias that can answer all his question and all his doubts. In modern times, most of us, when in doubt, use Wikipedia to respond to our own uncertainties, because this platform allows people to learn and study much more quickly; for this reason it is called "encyclopedia online". Starting from 2006, precisely, the world began to know Wikipedia. Above all, a platform that reached 961000 articles in English on every imaginable topic is hard to miss as a novelty or as an innovation.(M. Barton and R. Cummings;2008). When we talk about Wikipedia, we must necessarily explain what the so-called "wikis" are and who they are. Wikis can be defined first and foremost as a community of people. Blog and wiki are both tools that make it easy to publish jobs online. Wikis have a strong civic and service learning potential that tends to be overlooked by experts who do not properly integrate their wikis into their class. (M. Barton and R. Cummings;2008). Unfortunately, the issue on wikis has raised several doubts and uncertainties. Since Wikipedia is an online platform, that is open to the public, the main fear is that of "assuming" wikis that are not very cultured and that, consequently, could write articles or pages little formative. However, it is important to recognize the civic volues and virtues of wikis and let these fears overcome their initial doubts about "security" when introducing the so-called "wiki-students". The wikis have even been introduced within a degree course called " rhetoric of technology" where, the objective of this course was to provide writing teachers with a practical and critical experience with new writing technologies. The teacher Joseph Moxley used wikis, especially as a simple way for students to publish their academic works. In addition, to avoid losing their data and to increase security, the "password" system was also introduced within the "wikibooks"(M. Barton and R. Cummings;2008). The scholar Feenberg looks at our technologies from a critical perspective. He argues that computerization does not lead people to "media addiction" but can provide a role for communication skills and collective intelligence. In line with Feenberg's thinking, wikis, for example, are the type of computerization that will provide citizens with significant roles in information development. As Matt Barton say in his article, wikis " are not weapons of hegemonic domination but tools of democratic liberation; their power does not come from above, but from below, from a thousand humble citizens ". (From the article "Is there a wiki in this class?: wikibooks and the future of higher education" p-10). We can conclude by saying that, after all, although there are still numerous skeptics, the usefulness and importance of wikis is indisputable , otherwise the huge success of Wikipedia would not be explained.

REFERENCES: -Matt Barton & Robert Cummings;(2008).; -Wiki Writing: Collaborative Learning in the college classroom; Published by : University of Michigan Press, Digitalculturebooks.

From the article : is there a wiki in this class?: wikibooks and the future of higher education.

Hello Antonio! As for the structure and organization of the text, I think you should use paragraphs to make reading easier and more enjoyable. I think you could try using the Wiki tools to put links, references and images to enrich your text. As for the content, I found it really interesting. I agree with everything you say, and I consider that the content of your references is valuable. You talk a little about the importance of introducing Wikis in education. I recommend you read the article Building Up to Collaboration: Evidence on Using Wikis to Scaffold Academic Writing, by Tiligadas. He comments the advantages and disadvantages of the incorporation of Wikis in education. Finally, keep in mind that something that works doesn't mean or imply that it is correct. I am the first that frequently use Wikipedia information, but I am also aware that there are mistakes or imperfections in their publications. I share that it is a huge source of knowledge, but I believe that there are better ways of learning (books, academic articles, among others).

Arnaumh (discuss • contribs) 11:18, 12 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:
 * 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:
 * aside from a single edit very close to the project deadline, which reads a bit like a literature review around wearable technologies, there is no evidence of discussion or engagement with the essay collaboration process. This simply doesn’t address the assessment brief.

Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages
 * Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration
 * Little or none in evidence
 * Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay
 * Little or none in evidence
 * Evidence of peer-review of others’ work
 * Little or none in evidence

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * Clear delegation of tasks
 * Little or none in evidence
 * Clearly labelled sections and subsections
 * Little or none in evidence
 * Contributions are all signed
 * Very Poor

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.
 * Very Poor

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:25, 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.


 * This work is at the lower end of this grade band, so 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.


 * 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, it makes for fairly difficult reading, although the content itself does have some good qualities in there.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – none undertaken. This would effectively halve your mark for these elements.

General:
 * Reading and research: evidence of critical engagement with set materials; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material – all ok, apart from omission of peer-review elements.


 * 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 work.


 * Presentation: use of wiki markup and organisational skills needs much improvement.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)