User talk:Bangingbese

me, now a certified wiki user: it's for a school project Bangingbese (discuss • contribs) 17:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

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

What happens on the internet stays on the internet, is a quite common sentiment shared by the many avid internet browsers (pun completely intended). However, would this still be applicable to the concept of personalities? Does the person that you present yourself to be online, stay online? Or are you the same person online as well as offline? According to psychiatrist, Carl Jung (1990), the map of one’s psyche consist of various layers of archetypes. The one that is presented to the outside is referred to as Persona, original meaning: mask. Quite literally referencing how one puts on a mask comprised of society’s expectations on how a person should act, and one’s own beliefs of who they are. Jung means that the Persona is in fact not a whole representation of a person’s whole identity, however it does not mean that it isn’t a true version of identity - since people often believe that the Persona is part of who they are - rather that it is a narrowed down version on how a person chooses to present themselves to their surrounding. Now this becomes relevant in terms of online and offline identities, when we start to examine the areas in which persons interact online and offline, and whether or not societal expectations are prevalent in those social spheres.

Take fandom as an example, personally I have quite extensive experience within fandom behaviour online, and I can attest that fandom online, act through their own sets of notions and norms. As researched by Atiqah Abd-Rahim (2019), on the online behaviour of Hallyu fans, which are followers of Korean entertainment such as K-pop, it became evident that a sort of social hierarchy had been established based on the following numbers of the K-pop artists, where the larger the number the more presence you as an individual fan would have online. A presence which merely enhances one particular facet of a person’s online identity. Personally I have experienced this in such ways where the dedication and drive the fans have towards making sure their favourite artists reaches success overtakes any type of inhibitions they might have put on themselves had they been interacting with other fans in the “real world” per se. I have myself experienced this online fandom based social sphere where the way I present myself online much more adheres to the sets of notions, for instance, related to what it means in being an artist’s fan. Where I may seem to be more carefree online as I have this fandom persona to hide behind, however this doesn’t necessarily mean that this fandom persona that I present online is false. Or that it doesn’t align with the way I present myself offline. Because when I am, in real life, surrounded by people who I also know are familiar with online fandom I tend to act in the exact same ways that I would do online. Whereas if I discuss certain subjects online completely unrelated to fandom I would act differently, even though I am still online. I believe this boils down to the social spheres that we act in, independent of whether it is online or not. In a sense this follows an Eriksonian notion of how youth are more inclined to follow societal ideals and messages from their surroundings rather than a set structure of expectations, as they are more attuned to a digitised sense of the world where culture and time intermingle much more fluidly (Kay, 2018).

In conclusion, society is made up. Everything is a social construct, so why would online identities be less real just because they are online.

Referencing

 * Abd-Rahim, A. (2019) Online Fandom: Social Identity, and Social Hierarchy
 * Jung, C. (1990) The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious
 * Kay, A. (2018) Erikson Online: Identity, and Psuedoseciation in the Internet Age

Wiki Exercise #2 Comment Section
Wow, I think you took a very interesting stance to this question. I like that you used your own personal experience as grounds for the question and put your own twist to it. Your conclusion is quite extraordinary as it is very straightforward to put it easy. You are right. Everything is a social construct whether we want it to or not, some might find this sad but that does not mean it is not true. I also enjoyed your involvement of Mr. Jung, I would not necessarily have made that connection. Good thinking, mate. Antisocialblonde (discuss • contribs) 21:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3
Annotated Bibliography

Zytko, Doug & A. Grandhi, Sukeshini & Jones, Quentin. (2014). Impression Management Struggles in Online Dating. Proceedings of the International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work. 53-62. 10.1145/2660398.2660410.

In this research Zytko, Grandhi, and Jones investigate how people participating in online dating manage their impressions online in relation to potential romantic partners. They use data gathered from an interview study they conducted on 41 participants in order to find out how online daters present themselves as well as evaluate others based on appearances and impressions they gather from online dating profiles, in order to focus more on experiences of impression management rather than algorithm based research - as it ha been the norm for most prior research surrounding online dating. I think this is quite useful for my own research in how dating can be used as an example of how online and offline impressions manifest and present themselves. However it is a bit limited in how all the participants of the study had public dating profiles which sets a precedent in patterns of impression management, where the expectation is to be deceived. Despite this they still found that online impressions regarding dating strayed away from the notion that deception was to be expected, and most participants did not actually want to deceive their partners, however, they still used face to face meeting as an affirmation of their online impressions. This text becomes useful for my research as it shows how despite online impressions being taken at face value they do not necessarily instil the same type of trusts as offline impressions would.

Wiki Exercise #4
Wikimedia projects have been around since the early 2000’s, as a non-profit organisation that focuses on allowing people to have access to free content which provides mostly unbiased information, collected from a series of collaborative efforts made by people all around the world. Not only is the information provided on wikis accessible for all, but so is the process in which information is uploaded on each respective wiki page. However, that does not mean that the information on wikis is false or incorrect, as there are ways to ensure that any information uploaded is vetted by other editors and there are bots in place to remove any content that isn’t licensed properly or that provides wrong information. So despite the free nature of wikis there are still measures put in place that allows for some type of structured order. Therefore, this essay will explore how wikis can be considered to be a system of resources that are based on communist thought.

Examining the fundamental structure of the ways in wikis produce information, and provides access to said information, one can see similarities between Karl Marx and  Friedrich Engels basic foundation for what makes communism. For instance, wikis are built from community led efforts where the means of production comes from cooperative labour however, the “product” remains as common ownership. Instead of being commodified and used for profit that benefits the few, the product of wiki labour comes from the people and belongs to the people. This is how wikis become important, as they “present a new way of collaborative decision making and a new way of producing, owning, consuming, and distributing goods” . And it is because of this reason that wikis become such a valuable resource.

Drawing from my own experience in navigating the world of wiki-ing, I have come to realise that so much of my basic knowledge can be derived from browsing wikipedia. Taking part in creating a wiki page, as has been done on one of the project sites associated with wikimedias; Wikibooks, has provided me with the experience of cooperative digital labour. The common notion regarding digital labour is that it is exploitative to the point where the commodification of culture and creatives – such as the emergence of platforms like ‘ Buzzfeed’ – has created a “new” collaborative economy , however, wikis contrast these type of online medias due to essence of its information sharing is non-profit and the means of production comes from the willing participation of what one may call the labourers. Through wiki-ing, I have experienced labour, albeit digital, through the very forms that Marx and Engels discusses in their notions of communism. Wikis ensure that its labourers do not need to sell their labour in order to contribute to society.

Considering all these factors, it becomes obvious that wikis can be linked to communist thought, and how this is the reason for why the cooperative aspect of wiki-ing is so fundamental to ensuring that the operation of wikis remain economically unprofitable, not only to ensure that there can be free unhindered access for all, but also so that the value of the information produced continues to be a credible resource.

Wiki Exercise #4 Comment Section
yo sorry that its late again Bangingbese (discuss • contribs) 22:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Bese.. or should I say.. Comrade? Haha! Jokes aside, let's get in to your essay and why I think you did well. Can I just start off by telling you that this was quite a refreshing perspective on the subject, one I did certainly not expect. First of all, I liked that you linked the relevant Wikipedia articles that explain the terms you used in your piece, it really simplifies everything for people like me whom have a hard time remembering anything about anything (I wish I was joking but that is indeed the tragedy of my reality).

You start off your introduction quite strong by giving the reader a brief outline of what Wikimedia is and what their objectives are which sets up a good foundation for the reader to understand whether the organisation behind wikis have any sort of motives that they should take in to consideration. You also explain how editing content in Wikis work and what measures are taken to ensure that the information put out by Wikibooks is as accurate as it can be, this is a good way to end the introduction and it sets up the base of the argument you are trying to make with your text.

Your first paragraph explores what the fundamental structure of the ways in wikis produce information and how it is similar to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ basic foundation of what communism is. You then go in to detail explaining what you mean by this statement by providing examples that clarify your argument. I think your approach is successful in investing your reader in your argument and that you made your point clear because you added these examples. I think it shows how much insight it that you have on the topic and it appears that you have done your research well.

Your last paragraph relates your own experience and puts the information you have given thus far in to context. I believe it was a smart choice of you to take this approach, structuring it in this order of moving the argument from in theory to in practise. It makes your argument more convincing and seems like the most logical order to put your information in.

I believe that your conclusion is strong and sums up the points you have made well. I can really tell that you know what you are talking about because you have structured the essay the way you have and provided several examples. For me I don’t necessarily think I would have made the connection between communism and the Wiki community, had you not pointed it out so I thought it was an interesting take. From a quick glance it looks like you structured your references list accordingly to the guidelines as well which is good and the essay meets the set character count. In conclusion I think you did very well and you should be satisfied with your work! Antisocialblonde (discuss • contribs) 01:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk
TAKE ON MEEEEEEEEEEEEE Antisocialblonde (discuss • contribs) 01:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Take! On! Me! TAKE ME ONNNNNNNNNNNN Bangingbese (discuss • contribs) 01:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

(take-on-me) I'LL BE GONE.. IN A DAY OR TWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Antisocialblonde (discuss • contribs) 01:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC) ~ InStRuMeNtAL dudududududuududududududududuududududu boopbopbopbobp du dud dud dud dud dud dud dud du dud du dud dud ud dud dud dudb dudbf hfh fdhb ghf g vjf gfydf ug fr fh jg ch jcubdig du idibis digjdjhf Bangingbese (discuss • contribs) 01:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

[prolonged smooth jazz tunes play in the background] i feel so unsure as i take your hand and lead you to the dance floor 🎵 Antisocialblonde (discuss • contribs) 02:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

IM NEVER GONNA DANCE AGAIN GUILTY FEET AINT GOT NO RHYTHMMMMMMMMM Bangingbese (discuss • contribs) 02:01, 29 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:
 * 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:
 * Evidence of a number of smaller contributions to the essay discussion page, if a little inconsistent, with a small number of contribs that might be deemed substantial when applying the above criteria. Some good quality discussion although with a bit more consistency you could have clearly built things up much more considerably over time.

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
 * Satisfactory
 * Evidence of peer-review of others’ work
 * Satisfactory

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

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) 15:57, 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.


 * Some very good work submitted as part of your exercise portfolio here.This work is at the upper end of this grade band, and a little improvement would go some way to attaining a higher mark, especially in terms of keeping to the deadlines! 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 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 fairly good. 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, and it seems that you had taken advantage of this.

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


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)