User talk:BeccaWithFreckles

I will be using Wikibooks to publish different parts of my exercise portfolio for my Digital Media course.

BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 17:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Online Visibility and Footprint
Constant connectivity means we are growing less aware of just how visible we are online. From my own personal usage, I am ‘visible’ on Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat. I chose to make my Instagram account private for I no longer liked the idea of anyone being able to browse through my personal posts. However, even though I personally chose to step back and make myself slightly less visible by, I did not automatically gain full control over my visibility online. For although I no longer wanted strangers following my account, I couldn’t do very much about the ones who had already pressed the button before my settings changed.

Although by altering my settings I like to think that I have gained some level of control over my visibility online, this isn’t the case. We have grown accustomed to sharing information with others on a regular basis. So much so that we are sometimes unaware of just how much information we are sharing. Not only that, but even if I completely refrained from ever posting information about myself online ever again, that’s not so say someone else won’t share a photo of me on social media with or without my permission. I know many people who have no social media platforms whatsoever and yet images of them still occasionally pop up on my newsfeed. We feel we owe something to these platforms. Even though I have changed my account settings, I still notice when my following goes down. Perhaps one of the reasons we care, therefore, about making ourselves so visible online relates to the idea of ‘Online Disinhibition.’

Online Disinhibition is the idea that when we are online, we act in a way that we wouldn’t normally act in person. It is quite ironic that we would never think to approach a stranger in the street and tell them our whole life story or show them photos of a recent event in our lives. Yet this ‘always on culture’ we don’t think twice about sharing such information online. We use this virtual space often to create a better version of ourselves. One in which we feel far more confident than we do in our own skin. Thus, we feel we can not only better express ourselves online, but that by making ourselves as visible as possible, we as individuals will become more valuable. We mimic the behaviours of others who we see absorbed in this ‘online community’ and in doing so, we create a persona that is non-existent as soon as our devices are laid down. The compulsion to share and make ourselves visible relates therefore to the idea of online disinhibition because, by making ourselves visible we reach a confidence level that doesn’t exist in person. However, I would argue that although we feel by personally sharing information and expressing our opinions gives us control over our visibility, this is far from the truth. Anyone can get this information. Once online, like those who use it, the information is there forever.

BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 19:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello BeccaWithFreckles, when I read your discussion wikibooks and I could relate to the reason you changed your privacy settings to private. When on Snapchat I frequently check my settings, specially Snapmaps were an individual’s location and online participation, which stresses the idea you implemented on ‘visibility’ and ‘control’. With the internet expansion and the emergence of new platforms, there will forever be a constant monitoring or all data, which is what you clearly outline.

Also, I must express before reading this I was not aware of ‘Online Disinhibition’ as the notion of individuals perception changing to receive particular likes or support. I myself came across online disinhibition to appeal to the wider scope during my teenage years. However, now I acknowledge that to be yourself is the way forward. But with visible online trends that celebrities endorse self-expression becomes limited and brings in the topic of Determined coined by Raymond Williams. The concepts foresees there is nothing in a particular technology which assures ‘cultural’ or ‘social outcomes’ which occur).

Overall, I feel that I have learnt and developed a lot from your wiki exercises one. Thegirlwiththewhitebrother (discuss • contribs) 13:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

BeccaWithFreckles, I chose to reply to your first assignment, because I too have a freckles! Anyway, I relate to your concerns regarding privacy within social media. Since our age group grew up while social media grew up, decisions we made when creating accounts are difficult to change. It seems excessive to block people you no longer want following you, but that is pretty much the only option if we want to sustain total privacy.

As far as your thoughts on online personas vs real life personas, I dont totally agree. I feel as though I personally put a huge amount of effort its making sure who I am online is parallel to who I am in real life. I have a few friends who are Instagram famous who are in fact exactly the same online as they are in real life. I think that theory that people act differently online is different for every single user. I also know people in real life whos entire social media presence is completely different from who they are.

I have always loved social media, and I have a very optimistic attitude towards it. I think it is a medium that can be used for good, and the users have the power to decide what they do with it, and whether is becomes positive and encouraging, or the exact opposite. Ryleyfred (discuss • contribs) 17:51, 9 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.


 * 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 – these are especially good. You have engaged in discussion in an open and critical way with other users who have commented on your work (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). Keep this up!

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 2: To what extent are my online and offline identities aligned?
Being that I am quite a shy and reserved person, particularly when it comes to face-to-face communication, I have always taken great comfort in the level of freedom that online platforms gives me in terms of how I present myself. I feel far more confident communicating online than I do in person. Online I can take my time, pause and reflect, and see if any of it needs tweaking. This contrasts with face to face communication which demands me knowing exactly what I want to say/express from beginning to end with no chance of remediation. In person, I find myself getting flustered and stumbling on my words, especially when it comes to sharing very personal information. I hate making eye contact and try to avoid it when communicating in person as much as possible. However, this is not something I have to worry about online. Online communication allows for an “emotional hit and run” However, whilst online communication has allowed me to experience the positive side of online disinhibition, it has not always been so productive. When I was in high school, the self I presented online was not in the slightest an accurate representation of my real identity. Back then, all I cared about was getting as many followers as I possibly could and making sure that my peers thought I was cool. Whilst I thankfully never let myself fall into the trap of projecting forms of toxic disinhibition such as cyberbullying or trolling, I do feel I can heavily relate to Bollmer’s claim that all forms of identity are a mere “performance” with each version of this being different depending on the situation. . For example, I have always been a huge fan of the TV show ‘Strictly Come Dancing.’ However, I never showed this online in school, because I knew my social group would not approve. Yet, offline it was all I would ever talk about.

Thus, I feel there is no such thing as a fixed identity. The digital era has heightened the need to stick to societal norms, meaning we adapt how we present ourselves depending on who we’re with. The online community greatly shapes the identity which we project online which may not be the same as the one we present offline – or on another social media platform. Whilst this can be a good thing in some respects as it allows us to feel less vulnerable in how we communicate, it is can also have the negative impact of making us feel ashamed of who we really are. I may have outgrown the insecurities I faced in high school in relation to posting about my favourite TV show, however I do still find myself questioning whether or not it is ‘right’ for me to share something on my page for fear of what others will think of me. I guess, we are all just fighting to avoid opening ourselves to the “right to be forgotten”, even if it means forgetting our true selves.

@BeccaWithFreckles: Hello! I really do agree with what your essay is stating and how you come across with what you are saying. I also agree with how we change our online identity due to the possible outcomes of the real world like judgement from friends and potentially family. But it is still very important to be honest online, however i believe that online everyone is very naive and it's somewhat impossible to show your true self completely due to our own need to be comfortable with ourselves. People talk about how online identities are form themselves but in reality the reason we try and become ourselves online is due to the pressure of pleasing other people and thus in the end we cannot fully become ourselves within digital media. This being said how we present ourselves online is completely up to us and those outwith our own self will never know the difference if that is the only connection we have. Isabellathebull (discuss • contribs) 19:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeccaWithFreckles: Hi! You have a strong argument here, and I agree with everything you've stated. You've made good use of sources as well, showing how your beliefs interact with other people's views on the topic. I agree with what you've said about people being more timid or uncomfortable in real life and so the internet can help them overcome this and express themselves. Although I think that sometimes the internet can help people be themselves, without fear of being judged as it is not an in person confrontation, I also stand behind your argument that people often think they have to 'fit in' online and so may avoid talking about their passions if they feel they aren't 'cool'. They also may feel the need to edit their pictures or crop out parts of their body that they don't want others to see, which shows how the internet has the ability to make us want to change ourselves and hide who we are. Ultimately, I agree with you that I am pretty much the same in real life and online however, a lot of people, especially those who are younger, still assume that they need to be different online in order to not be left out. Good piece of writing! AbbyWaugh (discuss • contribs) 20:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

This essay makes good use of academic writing and a great use of personal experience to create an interesting and reflective argument about the nature of identity. I really like how you used your 'real-life' experiences to illustrate your argument, looking at your own online behaviour compared to offline to further understand what this distinction means. I enjoyed the introduction of other topics in the wider module like online disinhibition that you weave into your argument very well to make your arguments even clearer and easier to understand. Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 12:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I think this is a really good response to the assignment. Your essay is really well written, it is very real and honest, I feel it is very relatable. I do agree that it is easier to feel confident when communicating online because there is time to stop and think, this is something I feel more comfortable with too. The source and in text quote you used at the end of that sentence was very effective and a good, relevant use of sources! I would also like to say I agree there being no such thing as a fixed identity. In my answer to this assignment I discussed something similar where I expressed it is impossible to be exactly who you are offline, online due to too much or too little content posted. It's interesting how you mention social media heightens social norms, as this is an aspect I had not thought of while writing mine but it is very relevant. Digitalmedia2018 (discuss • contribs) 13:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 3: Annotated Bibliography
Cheung, C. (2007). Identity and self-presentation on personal homepages. In D. Bell, & B. M. Kennedy (Eds.), The cybercultures reader (Second ed., pp. 273-285). Abington, Oxon: Routledge.


 * In this chapter, Charles Cheung illustrates how ‘personal homepages’ can be used to express one’s identity in a way which is impossible offline. We are not constrained by the ‘sign vehicles’ which dominate face-to-face interactions. Such fluidity allows for online identities to always be ‘under construction’ meaning we do not have to stick to a singular identity. However, he also briefly acknowledges the fact that the newness of this platform means there are still issues of both access as well as our reluctance to stray from the ideological expectations about identity which domineer the offline world. This corresponds well with my research into the topic of Online Disinhibition as it illustrates the adaptations in expression that occur in the online context. However for a full understanding of the topic to be reached, it is crucial that my further research investigates the limitations of ‘personal homepages’ which Cheung only vaguely analyses.

Wiki Exercise 4: Collaborative Essay Critical Evaluation: What are wikis?
Wikibooks can be best defined as digital textbooks. However, unlike traditional textbooks, these are free and easy to access when a device is present. Not only that, but offline social hierarchies are irrelevant for “Wikibooks propose a different genre of textbooks written by volunteers” and furthermore creates “an empowering environment while promoting collaboration, decision making, and self-reflection.”



Different stances are possible in regards to how one views visibility on the site. The ability to check up on each users contributions means “each successful article develops its own community of people who recognise each other’s work.”(Genre) In other words, one’s level of engagement can be rigorously monitored. However, the often anonymous usernames makes it hard to paint a picture of a users true identity. Thus, whilst the ability to track activity may lead some to argue that visibility is at the core of this platform, others might argue it is a space where people are “collaborating to produce a common product that has none of their names on it.”

However nonetheless, from my experience it is clear collaboration is an integral element of Wikibooks. By collaboratively working on an essay on the topic of Online Disinhibition and utilising the discussion page frequently I was able to showcase my own personal research findings, as well as learning from that of the other individuals in my group. This furthermore created an open space “allowing learners to participate in their own learning as well as to influence the learning of others.” Yet, although thoroughly collaborative, it forms a rather ironic community on the whole. Unlike traditional research tasks, Wikibooks allows for a “loosely coupled community.” One does not have ties to a specific project. They can jump from various Wikibooks, editing the details as they see necessary. The lack of personal affiliations also means that whilst you are technically working with others, you have to rely on your own initiative a lot of the time. Although many say it doesn’t take long to get to grips with the workings of the site, this way of working greatly contrasts traditional notions of teamwork. Yet nonetheless, it is still very much platform which harbours a ‘digital commons’ for, although  impersonal, it harbours like minded individuals with a shared goal of creating a project to be utilised furthermore making it “an online space for collaborative authorship and writing.”

Finally, although there is a degree of anonymity about the site which could lead to online disinhibition in regards to how one contributes, full online emancipation is not possible. Inappropriate conduct on the site can lead to administrators taking action. Administrators can not only observe, but they can also intervene when things get messy in order to ensure that nothing vandalises the potential completion of a Wikibook project.

Hi, I strongly agree with the points you have made in this writing. I think that the arguments that you have made are extremely relevant and important to understanding wiki platforms as a whole. I like what you said about offline social hierarchies being unimportant to Wikibooks, due to it being written online by volunteers. Although not explicitly stated, I think it relates quite well to your point later in the essay about visibility. How can offline social hierarchies matter when usernames are anonymous? This isn’t always true as usernames are completely up to the user, for example mine was just my name as it was easy to remember however, the point is still relevant as many people chose creative usernames, as anonymous as they please.

I agree with what you said about your experience with the project, as showcasing our individual research on the pages created an open environment where we could aid each other’s learning. I found that this environment encouraged me to work harder and produce better quality content as I knew other people would be reading my research and trying to add their own work to mine. As my group had the task of covering ‘social media movements’, we split up into pairs and threes to cover subtopics, and I knew that whatever I did, effected my partners grade. This was a push to make me work harder and put in more effort to the project, along with the idea of the final project being available for the public to view.

Your view that wiki platforms having a collaborative community is ‘ironic’ is a strong argument, and one that I side with you on. Wikibooks does not assign you a page to work on, and users can make any number of edits that they wish to any page. I agree that although you work as a group, everyone makes different numbers of edits and so you mainly will have to rely on yourself. The site attempts to promote teamwork yet, with some people pulling more weight than others, it is down to the individual users to create the results that they want. This gives the idea of a “loosely coupled community” as you stated.

You are correct to state that full online emancipation cannot be achieved on this site. It is certainly up for debate due to the fact that anyone with an account can edit any pages they wish to. Nonetheless you have highlighted the fact that administrators will take action if necessary. This ensures that pages stay as factual as possible and that people’s hard work is not being destroyed. Something worth mentioning is the fact that work can be deleted by other users, and that without permission from the user who wrote the content, this can seriously hurt a wiki page.

Overall I think this piece of writing is great as it highlights key issues of wiki platforms and describes what the site is and what it aims to achieve. You also provide strong sources which definitely helps to support what you are saying. From your writing, I conclude that wiki platforms are a positive thing, especially in the digital world as it provides accessible online education services despite their potential issues. These issues are only a problem if users abuse their freedom on the site. AbbyWaugh (discuss • contribs) 22:19, 4 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:
 * Outstanding. In addition to the criteria for 70%+, work at this standard demonstrates outstanding critical understanding of the exercise and is able to produce sophisticated lines of argument, and is highly original.

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, high-quality contributions to discussion throughout the project period. Evidences awareness and management of process, workflow and subject content. A large number of smaller contribs that are accompanied by a number of those considered as considerable, significant, and a large number of substantial posts. This really is very good work and you have made an exceptional effort here. Well done!

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


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

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * Clear delegation of tasks
 * Outstanding
 * 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) 16:05, 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:


 * Excellent. Among other things, these entries 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 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 way. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts. 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. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.


 * This work is very well written, very well organised, and well researched. You make good use of the wiki functionality and markup goes 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 an even bigger difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are especially good, very well written, and very generous in terms of ideas and exchanges. I like that you have framed some of your responses to attempt to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!). Also, 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). This is a really solid portfolio.

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


 * 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 excellent.


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)