User talk:Arnaumh

This is my user discussion page for Digital Media and Culture.

Wiki Exercise #1: Online Visibility and Footprint
In my case, I only use Instagram and Twitter. I had Facebook and Snapchat, but both applications stopped being used frequently in Spain and I decided to eliminate my accounts. I am aware that everything that I upload on the network will be accessible to everyone, since my accounts have always been public, therefore if I stop using any of the platforms – as happened with the two commented before – I prefer to delete my profiles. I want to have the maximum possible control of my personal information that is online.

It is evident that everything that is in the network is there because, at one time or another, I decided that I wanted it to be. Even so, the control I exert over him is relative. It is never too late to remove it from the Internet, therefore, if at any time I see appropriate to retire something, I can do it. However, during the period since I decided to publish it, anyone has been able to download it. In addition, social networks control the use you make of the platforms and have private information that you had to give at the time of registration.

On Instagram I only show some pictures about me, or my family and it is the tool that I use to know what my friends or the celebrities that interest me are doing. However, I use Twitter to be informed and share my articles about FC Barcelona matches, my biggest passion. So far, I am writing for pleasure and without earn money on a sports website. My goal with this digital labour, my topic of my Collaborative Essay work, is to acquire experience to work remunerated in a reputed media. To achieve this, I hope that the image I have projected online is correct.

Digital labour is strongly related to our online visibility and footprint. Nowadays we have experienced a phenomenon of profound transformation in our way of life and in our relationships due to the irruption, settlement and domination of new technologies and social networks. All professions have been affected and our personal and work relationships have changed. I don't consider this negative, but it is part of human evolution. What is evident is that, more and more, it is valued more who you are on the Internet than in the reality.

Arnaumh (discuss • contribs) 11:30, 01 March 2019 (UTC)

I found what you said about Social Networks allowing us to show and hide aspects of ourselves to the world in the ways we prefer an intriguing point, especially relating to digital labour, as I would say this also relates to the topic I am investigating, which is online disinhibition. In John. R Suler’s article he talks about this idea, as he puts forward reasons why people seem to act differently online and do things they normally wouldn’t do when in comparison to ‘real life’, which seems evident with the examples of people’s professional life being affected because of online activity. I would agree with what you say about online presentation becoming a lot more valued in recent years.

Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 23:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise #1
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:


 * Good. Among other things, good entries will make a clear point in a clear way. They will relate concepts to original examples in a straightforward fashion. They will make effective use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons). They may also demonstrate a broader understanding of the module's themes and concerns, and are likely to show evidence of reading and thinking about the subject material. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.


 * 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 (especially for this, perhaps, the Understanding) criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets. Less instrumentally, and more in relation to this particular post, 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 have made a considerable difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, although there was a requirement to post on TWO other people’s work, so you would have missed some marks there. Remember that the comments are "worth" as much as posts themselves. The reason for this is not only to help encourage discussion (a key element of wiki collaboration!) but also to get you to reflect upon your own work. This can all, of course be used to fuel ideas that might form part of your project work. I like that you have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!) and also that you are beginning to discuss 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 - arguably the civic element of wiki that you ought to be thinking about, which you clearly are).

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: To what extent are my online and offline identities aligned?
People can have more than one version and each of them will be used in a certain situation or with a specific company. In addition, the rest of the humans have different images about us according to the relationship we have. In social networks we have the opportunity and the power of show to the world what we prefer or our best part. We can create an improved or even idyllic version of our self. But to what extent does our online self reflect who we really are?

In my case, I consider that what you can find online about me, matches with who I really am. For example, in my Instagram you will mainly see pictures with my little siblings and my family, because I'm a very familiar guy. If you check my Twitter, you will deduce that I am a Barça fan and that all my tweets are related to the world of football, and if you really know me, you will know what this sport means to me. My virtual self resembles my real self. The only difference is that before uploading anything to Internet, I have time to think about how to do it; in the reality, our actions, words or decisions, only have an opportunity. Even so, I can't assure you that in a few years you will find the same information about me. In the same way that in the real world, with the passage of time, our manner of thinking, seeing things, and our likes change, the same happens with our online identity if it really shows who we are. If you look your publications from a few years ago, you will understand perfectly what I am saying. For this reason, when I reached a point of maturity that made me realize that I had content on my social networks that wouldn't be appropriate for the image I wanted for me in the future, I deleted my Instagram and Twitter accounts and created two new profiles, focused on who I’m working to be.

After all, as Zizi Papacharissi says, “in everyday life, people consciously and unconsciously work to define the way they are perceived, hoping to engender positive impressions of themselves” (p. 252). Logically, there are too many factors – age, people around us, personal experience, among many others – that determine what conception we have of “positive impressions”, and these, as I said before, change over the years. Sometimes, the essence of our online identity doesn't change and we continue sharing the same kind of things, but in a more appropriate and responsible way.

Kelly Quinn and Zizi Papacharissi talk about the “self-actualization through sociability” in The Sage handbook of social media (2017). This may be one of the reasons why we give so much value to our online selves. It is another way of being accepted and maturing through these relationships. In short, we do a similar process to the real life, but virtually interacting with more people. As Michael Mandiberg defends, “the key to this lifestyle is finding balance” (p. 76) and, above all, to be aware of who we are and who we want to become, both in real life and online.

Arnaumh (discuss • contribs) 22:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with all your arguments and I really think you're right. Paragraph structure makes reading the text more enjoyable as it has more flow. You have used many sources to support your ideas. I really enjoyed it.

And00127 (discuss • contribs) 22:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Arnaumh! I agree with your position on offline and online identities. Your mini-essay is easy to read because it is well structured in five paragraphs. That is good. You have used sources of information that reinforce the ideas you point to in the text. This is also good. In this sense, I think that Sherry Turkle's book Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other may interest you. One of the subjects on which she writes is the danger of leading a double life online. I congratulate you for the work you have done and I encourage you to keep working like this!

Alvarocarrena (discuss • contribs) 10:05, 18 March (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Annotated Bibliography Exercise (Part B)
Burston, J., Dyer-Witheford, N., & Hearn, A. (2010). Digital labour: Workers, authors, citizens. Ephemera Journal, 10(3/4), 214-221. Retrieved from http://www.ephemerajournal.org/sites/default/files/10-3editorial.pdf

In this article Jonathan Burston, Nick Dyer-Witheford and Alison Hearn introduce the Digital Labour Group, explain what their objectives are and reflect on various issues related to digital labour, such as new forms of work, our way of life in the digital age or the digital capitalism, among others. The authors use the topics discussed in the conference held at the University of Western Ontario on October 2009 to discuss and analyse them. The text focuses on the relationship of digital labour with larger areas, such as politics, economy, society or education. The article can be useful for my research topic, because with the participation of several authors they try to explain the complexities of digital labour. The main limitation is the absence of a clear definition of what digital labour is, which would help the reader to contextualize all the arguments and ideas that are expounded throughout the text, but the contribution of examples and the clarity of the debate compensates for the initial confusion. This article will not form the basis of the research of my team on digital labour; however, it will provide us a broader vision about digital labour, and this can be valuable for our research.

Arnaumh (discuss • contribs) 20:47, 19 March (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Collaborative Essay Critical Evaluation – What ARE Wikis?
In 2012, Mandiberg said that “Wikipedia is already in the top one hundred websites, and many people think it will be in the top ten before long” (Mandiberg, M., 2012, p. 38). He wasn’t wrong. Now Wikipedia is one of the ten most visited websites and without any doubt it has become one of the most successful projects since the appearance of the Internet. All students have ever used (and not a few) this encyclopaedia to face a task. This website, characterized by free content and open collaboration, shares the same way of organizing and editing as the Wikibooks, a similar undertaking that began in 2003, funded by the Wikimedia Foundation.

The purpose of the Wikibooks is to be like a library, a free collection of textbooks and commented texts of varied content that anyone can edit. These are two qualities that make this website special: the gratuity and the invitation to participate. As I said before, this project is led by a non-profit and charitable organization, whose main objective is “to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally”. I think it's a way to enhance communication and collaboration between people. Tiligadas said that “evidence suggests wikis to be flexible tools which may improve collaboration and provide students with new skills”.

This platform not only encourages participation, but also discussion and debate among editors. In my case, I took advantage of this possibility to do my Collaborative Essay on Digital Labour. I had the opportunity to easily communicate with the other members of the group, and I was able to read their opinions. In this way, I improved my ideas for my part of the work. In fact, the discussion section available on Wikibooks was truly useful in distribute the work and help each other. As Scholz said, “platform cooperativism is about solidarity” (Scholz, T., 2016, p. 14). All of this is necessary to create the sense of community that Wikibooks aims to achieve.

Throughout the text we have reviewed the positive part of Wikibooks and its way of working, but it also has shortcomings. Facilitating the participation of users can damage the prestige of the platform. The more people can collaborate, the more complicated will be to control the level of rigorousness of the published content. The review of the publications must be exhaustive. One aspect to improve is the language catalogue. It would be better if the amount of information available on the page wouldn't change according to the language selected. In general, I think that the objective of the platform is too utopian and complicated to perform on a large scale.

When I say that the project is too utopian, I mean that the idea is too idealized (too perfect), therefore it is unlikely to work as imagined. Even so, I trust that one day Wikibooks can really become a recognised source of knowledge without borders, with strong community ties and a prestigious and unlimited process of creation of content.

Arnaumh (discuss • contribs) 13:39, 04 April (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:
 * Assignment responses receiving marks at this level tend to not contain any merit or relevance to the module. Contributions are one-liners, sometimes made up of text-speak, if there are any contributions at all. Often they are indicative of failure to comment on other students’ ideas, and therefore do not engage with the crucial peer-review element. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement, or the user has been blocked for vandalism or other contraventions of wiki T&C. 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 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 discussion
 * Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay
 * little to no evidence of contribution to discussion
 * Evidence of peer-review of others’ work
 * little to no evidence of contribution to discussion

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * Clear delegation of tasks
 * little to no evidence of contribution to discussion
 * Clearly labelled sections and subsections
 * little to no evidence of contribution to 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) 15:18, 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:


 * Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory entries 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). The wiki markup formatting will need some work.


 * Your post in general are of very good quality, and reflect an engagement with the process and with the platform. Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone some way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, if a little brief. Remember that the comments are "worth" as much as posts themselves. The reason for this is not only to help encourage discussion (a key element of wiki collaboration!) but also to get you to reflect upon your own work.

General:
 * Reading and research: evidence of critical engagement with set materials; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material – all good, although I would have liked the peer-review elements of your work to be a little thicker.


 * 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 good.


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)