User talk:Atari Darren

This is the discussion page of my class project on Wikibooks spring 2019 Atari Darren (discuss • contribs) 17:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Atari_DarrenAtari Darren (discuss • contribs) 17:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC) My online presence is seen on sites such as Facebook, Instagram, Tinder, Play station network and Snap chat as well as a You Tube Channel. However I see that my use of Snap chat is used as a means of instant communication with those of my friends that refuse to be part of Facebook. With regards to my Facebook and Instagram, those I use in different ways: Facebook is the social media I use to keep in contact with groups and societies that I'm part of and wish to keep up with. My Instagram is more experimental I like to share the occasional post of things I've made or photos of My dogs but I prefer to review films and post them for people to read as recommendations and to share my personal opinions, this means of sharing is more personal and is shared publicly as anyone can follow my account, comment and like my posts. This form of online expression is a recent development due to having deleted previous Instagram accounts and Facebook accounts due to sheer overload of messages, pointless advertisement and spam from false accounts. The development of my new Instagram is my means of growing more confident online allowing me to share my personal opinions and follow people whose uploads are of interest to me. My tinder account is a means of attempting to become again more confident with the use of a more personal description and a decent set of photos, as goes with being part of an online dating app I'm aware that many people may see my account and I have no issue with the amounts of people who view my account as a certain amount of people do like my account and this boosts the ego due to the number of matches and likes one can receive. The idea of these matches being potential dates and a further relationship outside of an online presence. The benefits of this form of online liking/ matching with people bridges a communication gap that exists within the digital age as in reality being able to tell if someone is interested in you is masked by social anxiety making approaching people we are attracted to more difficult than simply swiping right. My other online account and presence on Play station network is used solely for playing games however in past years having used the communities around online RPG's I was a participant in a larger community of Raid teams and Fire teams on Destiny and made friends in multiple countries due to my 'skill' at playing destiny. My You Tube Channel is not exactly a form of posting content to entertain audiences but is rather a means of allowing me to post animations I have made and the occasional Gaming video on a sub channel, all of these being public online for anyone to see. Atari Darren (discuss • contribs) 09:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Atari_DarrenAtari Darren

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:


 * 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.


 * This work is at the upper 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. 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 – none undertaken. This would effectively halve your mark in assessed work.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2
As with all forms of media social and digital we can see that we create resemblances of ourselves within a larger scale than ever before. When discussion our real life presence and online one we can see subtle differences caused by a greater freedom that social medias produce, the notion of the online society appeals to my self and many others as with the safety of the screen comes the ability to share and enjoy things such as Fan following, Interests and Hobbies with a larger online community that also share these same interests. But does this essentially tie to our physical selves and how we present ourselves? The topic does bring into question just how are our physical and digital selves being tied together? social medias and online dating applications have risen greatly due to the rise of the online self as a means of connecting romantically through the security of the internet and carefully selected photos so as to present an image of ones self to others without the dangers of being rejected in person or the insecurity of being unable to gauge whereas if the other person is interested as well as being secure in of the right that if one party feels invaded upon they can simply block or un-match them and feel safe. The close connections of the digital self and physical is irrefutably tied to the rise of social media's such as Facebook as previously Facebook could be tied to a Tinder account showing mutual interests and friends however in recent history this feature was removed due to the invasive nature of Facebook and its data sharing with advertisers. Sites like Tinder and Grindr have brought a social media like platform to the online dating format founded years ago. The accessibility given by online dating applications the like of tinder show the convenience of local people that are open to relationship prospects, as highlighted by (Hobbs M. et al. 2016) "Tinder, as a form of social media, allows for a significantly expanded social network to form. While networks facilitated by social media can be global, they tend to coalesce around geographical proximity" Within this article Hobbs begins to detail the commonality of the social media aspects of dating applications in the everyday as a means to an end.

Social media presentation as a means of displaying a more suitable 'self'. To represent ourselves is to show our interests, hobbies etc. The building of such social media profiles is therefore reflective of how people wish to represent themselves online due to a certain level of in-ability in the real world. Profiles made on sites such as Facebook or Instagram display can show not only our interests, relationships and other details but the profile picture alone can display support for movements and charities with photo filters. The development of the profile online is better used today to represent an honest profile with real names and photos as opposed the older chat-rooms whereas the use of a nick-name was more common. (Herring S.C. Et al. 2015) "platforms such as Facebook explicitly encourage users to provide truthful personal information. Thus teens tend to present their 'real identity' on these sites through their usernames, photographs, and other information that they provide about themselves." The importance of the true self online has became somewhat more important due to this need to be social within an online community therefore presenting their profiles takes importance over the need to conceal their interests that they have in the real world as with the safety of the internet and the ability to share with communities that also display their mutual interests therefore making their presentation incredibly important online if they seek to enjoy an interest in a social way.

Comments for Wiki Exercise #2
Hi Darren,


 * I hope you don't mind me adding a comment section. If you do, please feel free to delete this and move my comment!

Thank you for your feedback on my essay draft! It made me notice that I hadn't updated it yet. I tend to write my drafts on here and then run them through a grammar checker and then re-post them again. In my opinion, it can be quite tricky to find spelling errors when looking at the text in the editiong section of wikibooks. I very much agree with a lot of the points you make in your essay and I like how you put such a big emphasis on the influence of social media in its many forms (i.e. dating apps). Like I mention in my essay, I think dating is an essential part of what makes us who we are and the way we date often reveals a lot about the culture and circumstances we find ourselves in. You also make a good point in mentioning how the way we portray ourselves online is as a more pefect, or as you call it 'suitable', self. I like the use of the word 'suitable' in this context since it highlights that there can be a big difference between the way we see ourselves and the way we really are (the way others perceive ourselves through our actions). One might think that a bit of editing here and there might bring their online self closer to who they 'really are' or at least could be. I hadn't looked at the issue in that way yet and found it to be a very interesting viewpoint. In a way, maybe our online self is quickest and easiest way of showing who we (think we) are, since, like you mention, one can simply put a filter over one's profile picture and send a political message through that. Another thing you mention is about how facebook encourages its users to post truthful infomation, and to be quite frank, I didn't know they did. This made me think back to middle-school when we were actively encouraged by our teachers not to use our real last names (for obvious privacy reasons). I am kind of torn between both sides. I currently use my real name on facebook and haven't felt like it has made any difference so far. Still, it is now very easy to google my name and find my facebook profile. While I personally don't really care since my facebook is on private and I am very thoughtful about what I post online, I still think that one should not forget about the implications that putting too much revealing information out there can have. JuliaWearsAScarf (discuss • contribs) 21:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I find what you have written to be quite interesting, especially when you talked about how we use social media as a way to present a more suitable version of ourselves, which I totally agree with. Far too often on social media, we find ourselves comparing ourself to others based on the “cool’ things they see and do but in reality, this is only just a fraction of what their life is like. I also like the point you made when you wrote that teens use their social media profile, on platforms such a Facebook, usernames, photographs, and information as a way to represent themselves more honestly, which I would agree with as well. I find myself being more honest or showcasing a more honest version of myself on Facebook in comparison to other social media platforms. This idea relates to John R. Suler (2016) when he writes, “As cyberpsychologists such as Joinson (1998) and myself noted early on, people tend to say and do things in cyberspace that they would not ordinarily say or do in the face-to-face world. They loosen up, feel more uninhibited, and express themselves more openly. We called it the online disinhibition effect” (p. 96). Which like I wrote earlier, I find myself and definitely my peers on social media displaying on their respective profiles. Bojackpopsocket (discuss • contribs) 15:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

What you have written gives light to something I hadn't thought about which is tinder as a form of social media (I had forgotten it used to show mutual friends you had with a person or if you were already friends on Facebook) but it also makes sense in that how closely tinder is linked to Facebook and Facebook is attributed as many peoples online presence where they try to appear cooler or simply better than they might do in a face to face situation. When considering that it makes tinder just seem like a lie in that someone isn't actual 'matching' with you their matching with the version of you that you have idealised. (Aceventura hairdetective (discuss • contribs) 11:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC))

We've taken similar approaches to this exercise in that we agree that there is a difference between online and offline identity, and that to an extent online identities are a false, idealised version of the self. I hadn't considered Tinder when considering social media platforms and I think your work highlights how important Tinder could be to the discussion. Upon reading your piece I think it's possible that Tinder really is the epitome of the idealised online identity, given the pressures of dating most users are presenting the best version of themselves possible and are able to shield themselves behind their profiles and avoid the awkwardness of trying to make a good first impression. This sort of highlights the difficulty of online identities as there is a sense of dishonesty in how people present themselves, especially when it comes to online dating profiles. BowieAndQueen (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Darren, I completely forgot about the topic of dating apps when thinking about the topic of online representation. You highlight some interesting points, and I think that Tinder is the perfect example of trying to create the 'perfect' version of yourself online as the entire goal of the app is to get 'matches'. This means that you as a person are fully being judged upon a very small amount of information that is your profile. This means more pressure to get the perfect picture, the most captivating bio and have the 'coolest' music taste. It's an interesting thought that we are actually in competition with all of the other men our women on the app to have the most appealing profile in order to get matches and hopefully a date. I find that when I've had tinder in the past it was more a fun game of swiping and matching, and easy to forget that the people behind the screen were real people. Emmamchristie (discuss • contribs) 11:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Darren this has nothing to do with your wiki exercise. I am simply just writing to you to make contact about the data centers topic on the wikibook essay page. I had no way of knowing who you were or how else to make contact so I am doing it now and hope this could be rectified AuthenticEnough (discuss • contribs) 19:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC) can you please reply to me on my user page or maybe externally from wikipedia. to be honest this is doing ma hiid in so I would rightly prefer a real time kind of communication that will allow me to resolve this "clash of topics" if there is one. warmest regards hope to hear from you before the deadline. best wishes AuthenticEnough (discuss • contribs) 19:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3
Annotated Bibliography Part B;

Holden S. 2018 Thailand's Maya Bay from the film'the beach' shuts BBC News 

The following article is an example of a BBC article detailing the environmental damage of the increased tourism caused by film tourism. The article is useful as an example of the increased popularity and tourism that is the result of film production in exotic locations, it also holds clout as a source as with BBC regulation all articles are produced politically and culturally non-bias. The article does suffer from a lack of reinforcement from academic sources and established statistical insight, as the article does fail to provide any official statements/ statistics from the department of national parks, wildlife and plant conservation, despite referral to their decision to close the location for environmental purposes. In summary the source whilst useful as an initial insight as an example of environmental damage caused by the effects of film production/consumption, It lacks enough academic backing and references and therefore is only partially useful towards my study of Digital culture and the environment. Atari Darren (discuss • contribs) 17:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki exercise #4
'What are Wiki's?'

When discussing the platform that is Wikibook's the first response most commonly found is 'is it like Wikipedia?' and to within a certain degree yes it is, as the general format and membership of both sites share a large number of similarities, however, Wikibook's does have more directed academic writing behind each of the projects. The use of Wikibooks as an academic collaborative sister project of Wikipedia, it fosters a community of dedicated contributors and volunteers to maintain and moderate the various Wikibooks. It is, for this reason, the use of Wikibooks is incredibly useful as a potential wiki-based textbook:(Ravid G. et al. 2008) " A wiki-textbook combines the attributes of the textbook, of the e-book, and of the wiki. This hybrid construct will become a success if it leverages the advantages afforded by e-books and by Wikis, and improves on some of the limitations of textbooks". Wikibooks also has an incredible level of transparency with regards to what is written, as with the history section one can review whichever Wikibook they are on and what was written on a specific date and time. The site also allows for the growth of a community that shows the value in each member and their individual contribs, showing the value of transparency as those whose work is removed/edited can see who changed the text and allow for discussion as to why. The site also offering contribs provides the means to observe individual's contribution to group written Wikibooks meaning that those who lack substantial contributions are not accredited with the same level of recognition as those who contribute in large quantities. Wikibook's as a resource are useful as an online reference point and insight into specific studies and topics, with the ability to contribute and expand upon topics through the ability to edit work other than just your own. From my own experience of contributing to a Wikibook, I found that the ability to use the discussion page to establish an outline and division of the essay and the subcategories of the study for the essay were most beneficial, as with the contribution of others working on the same project I found times whereas topics could cross over and allowed for the sharing of online sources that could strengthen our arguments. The use of shared resources and work does allow for the freedom to edit and contribute to other projects as well as refer to other Wikibook's that handle some of the same themes as our own. Wikibooks as an online community could be seen as a community of practice (CoP) whereas it helps foster learning via mutual engagement, repertoire and a sense of enterprise. (Grace-Lin M.F. et al 2011) " According to Wenger, a high functioning CoP results from the formation of groups of people with like interests, experiences, and expectations. These individuals often share a passion or concern about a topic area or issue. Through the CoP, they are able to deepen their knowledge, expand their expertise in an area, and form new human bonds with others engaged in the same process." This idea is, in essence, the driving force behind Wikibooks as it allows for mutual interest and studies to give way to collaboration and a mutual better understanding of the subject. Atari Darren (discuss • contribs) 15:37, 31 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:
 * 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:
 * Very consistent engagement through the project period, with a large volume of smaller contribs in combination with a fairly large number of contribs that would be deemed substantial according to the above criteria. Excellent work.

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

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * Clear delegation of tasks
 * Excellent
 * 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.
 * Outstanding

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:59, 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:


 * 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 upper end of this grade band and is generally very well written, researched and organised. But even so perhaps a little improvement would go some way to attaining a higher mark. 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, paying more attention to the requirements of the assessment briefs would enable you to stretch a little more – substituting a BBC article for a peer-reviewed academic piece for Ex3, whilst on the limits of acceptability as we had agreed this, I’m not convinced actually paid off.


 * Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone some 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. I like that you have reflectively framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!). You have engaged in discussion 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).

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


 * 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 v. good.


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)