User talk:Auj00003

Online Visibility
Facebook. 7th grade. My first profile picture, friend request, status update. My first step through the cyber threshold and the first blip on the radar of my online presence. Fast-forward 10 years later and my online presence is, well, just that: a noticeable presence. Autumn is visibly online.


 * Instagram
 * Twitter
 * LinkedIn
 * Tumblr
 * Snapchat
 * Google+
 * Wordpress
 * Spotify
 * Blogger

All of these websites and more represent me online, and now Wikipedia can be added to that list. Looking at that list, I feel quite visible online, despite each of the online platforms I belong to showcasing varying levels of personal information about me to the public.

For instance, my Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat accounts are all fairly regulated when it comes to privatizing my information. I have much stricter privacy controls on these platforms, limiting the amount of information that people I don't know can receive from these profiles. But what about those people whose friend requests I accept? The people who make it behind the private settings, into the limelight of my online visibility, will find themselves seeing pictures of me, and of my friends and family; getting notifications when I like certain posts; seeing fleeting images of my personal life on my Snapchat story; or gaining crucial information like my email address or birth date from my "About Me" section that I created in 7th grade, when I had no notion of how busy the Internet would be 10 years later. Despite going to extra lengths to keep my information private, by simply agreeing to be party to platforms which such high online visibility, I forfeit some of my right to my privacy — I even sign it away in the terms and conditions. This The Gaurdian study explains just how problematic our 'click and go' attitude towards privacy policies can be for our online visibility. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Snapchat are all more personal forms of my online visibility, but other online platforms allow me to make visible a more professional, albeit more impersonal, online presence. Sites such as LinkedIn and WordPress let me communicate academic achievements, class-related research, or post my resume for job-search purposes. These websites have considerably less privacy settings because the intended audience is broader: I want employers to find me and check out my accomplishments, I want fellow scholars to read my work and give me suggestions. However, in wanting to appear visible to more people, I again relinquish my control over who sees my information and what they do with it. At least once a week I receive a notification from LinkedIn that says a colleague 'has created connections with someone you may know', which will direct me to this person's LinkedIn page. While the site is created specifically for these kinds of networking purposes, it makes me wonder how many times I have popped up as 'someone you may know' on another user's device.

Creating an online presence certainly comes with the risk of, well, existing in the massive space that is the Internet. Web 2.0 has only made growing one's online visibility more accessible, literally placing information about you into the hands of countless other social media users, with or without your knowledge. Convergence also plays a role in making online visiblity more transparent as it combines several elements of media in one compact place, allowing for information that might otherwise be spread across multiple visibility platforms to be concentrated in just one. Wikipedia maintains a wonderful touch of anonymity, yet allows the convergence of diverse ideas, media, and topics in just one place, making everything but the user highly visible. Perhaps this is why sites like Wikipedia remain popular despite the flow of technology towards more and more transparent platforms.

Auj00003 (discuss • contribs) 19:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography
Papacharissi, Z. A. (2013). Converged Media, Converged Audiences, and Converged Publics. A private sphere : democracy in a digital age. (1st ed., pp. 51-79). Polity Press. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Zizi Papacharissi is a communication scholar whose work focuses on social and political aspects of new media technologies. In her book, A Private Sphere, Papacharissi looks at how public and private spaces have been redefined by new technology, and how this redefining of space affects civic engagement in political, social, and cultural aspects of life. Her chapter on convergence, "Converged Media, Converged Audiences, and Converged Publics," focuses on how convergence plays a role in complicating the "democratic merit of online media" (52). Papacharissi picks apart three different levels of convergence: convergence in everyday life, convergence in technologies, and convergence of spaces. In each of these levels, Papacharissi defines convergence as emerging out of certain contexts, such as from capitalism, within private and public boundaries, and out of local and global pressures. Papacharissi peppers her work with definitions of convergence from previous authors, and she relies heavily on the foundation that Henry Jenkins built in his discourse on media convergence, particularly its participatory culture ( Jenkins, 2006 ). Though this chapter offers several working definitions of convergence as an ever-evolving space that is simultaneously shaped and shapes sociality, this chapter alone is not enough to provide a thorough-enough understanding of convergence for my group's collaborative essay, for Papacharissi focuses on the political implications of media convergence above its social implications. This article, however, will be a great reference for understanding the historical, technological, and societal contexts from which new technologies have emerged, and their subsequent consequences on specific aspects of consumer behavior.

Auj00003 (discuss • contribs) 11:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 3
This is a very clearly written and accurate bibliography, your choice of source is very important in regards to media convergence research, While not having heard of Papacharissi initially, her work is very interesting in highlighting aspects of Media convergence, that our public and private spaces have been altered to fit our digital media in many different ways. In the home, we have our smartphones, smart televisions and in some cases smart fridges! which looking back even 10 years ago was not an image in my mind. I was aware that private spaces had changed considerably but it was fairly recently I noticed that the rate of change is quite outstanding in public spaces, for example ordering drinks at some restaurant can be achieved via an app on your phone and with that, you can now use your phone as a form of payment!.

Defining and understanding Convergence is a difficult task but a reliance on Henry Jenkins work is particularly useful as it seems his ideas have had a resonance with other academics and students ( including me). Overall I wish you good luck with your collaborative essay and in understanding and educating others on the importance of media technologies and their effects. Jackaodha (discuss • contribs) 23:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment. You brought up some interesting elements of Papacharissi's work that I hadn’t planned on engaging further with in my collaborative essay, but now think I will include as the forms of media convergence you mentioned are becoming integral parts of everyday life in our continually digitalized world. I particularly enjoyed your used of the phrase "our public and private spaces have been altered to fit our digital media," versus altering our media to fit the needs of our public/private spaces. This goes to show how media convergence has not only physically changed our environments, but how we react to them, including the conversations surrounding media themselves. This will be a great argument to explore in my essay, and I thank you for bringing forward this discussion.


 * I took a peek at your discussion page, and see your collaborative essay deals with the Always-On culture. I think you could take the same idea discussed above (that the way we use media and interact with media has quite literally changed even our dialogues about it) and perhaps apply that notion as one of the side-effects of being emerged in an always-on culture. Auj00003 (discuss • contribs) 11:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: DISCUSSION, ENGAGEMENT, CONTRIBS

 * Engagement on discussion pages of this standard attain the following grade descriptor for contribs. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this 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.

Students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.


 * This was clearly not the case here – only 6 days registered as having logged a contrib, and most of this activity was an hour period on the 20th March, and a sustained couple of hours on the 28th. However, when you did engage, these seemed to be genuine contributions in terms of moving the project forward, especially in engaging with others in the group, and essay planning. A couple of the larger contribs on the discussion page (including a massive 13,000 character contrib) are just drafts so I’ve largely ignored these, but there’s evidence here of some meaningful engagement that really enabled the essay to move forward.

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: o	Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial” o	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


 * Several contribs registered as being under 1000 characters, and a couple that could be classed as “substantial” in the sense outlined above.

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


 * This was the strongest element of your contribution. You encouraged others to comment/respond.

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


 * There is some evidence of this.

•	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.


 * You conducted yourself well.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
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.

Posts 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 and comments are often extremely brief or missing. 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.


 * 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.


 * 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 will make a considerable difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – where you do engage, 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. This can all, of course be used to fuel ideas that might form part of your project work.

General:
 * Reading and research: Some evidence of this in your annotated bibliography.


 * Argument and analysis: Where you have written your exercises, this is ok, however, where you have neglected to complete the work (i.e. not Wiki ex #4) this is a shame as this particular exercise was designed to allow you to stretch and reflect.


 * Presentation: good use of wiki markup and organisational skills. More needed in this regard.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 10:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)