User talk:BigFeetMan

Hi, filling this out for a class project. BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 15:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1 - Online Visibility and Footprint
As I mentioned already, I have made this page for a module at uni and this exercise is one of my assignments, feel free to comment and discuss!

Discussions around online visibility are becoming more prominent, especially after some high-profile examples of how past web behaviour has come back to haunt people (James Gunn and Kevin Hart, Im looking at you). For me personally these incidents helped to make me slightly more informed of the dangers of the internet and how online visibility can have real life consequences.

In terms of my own visibility I honestly have no clue if I'd be considered highly visibly or only somewhat visible. I have accounts for many online platforms, however I wouldn't say that I post much more than the average person, not because I'm particularly worried about my data being collected, but simply because I often don't feel inclined to do so very much.

The data collection aspect of social media and other online platforms is something I've resigned myself to as part of the world we live in today, however I do take issue with the way that some social media activity is being used to target people. As previously mentioned there have been high profile cases of this and the first one that springs to mind when I hear this subject discussed is that of James Gunn. James Gunn is a film director and was in charge of Disney/Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy franchise until there was controversy after some old activity on Twitter resurfaced in the summer of 2018. James Gunn had acknowledged and apologised for these tweets many times in the past, but Disney still took issue with these tweets and as a result Gunn was terminated from his role. The issue that I take for this is not one of accountability, because we can and should be held accountable for our actions to a reasonable extent. But the key point here is accountability to a reasonable extent. In the case of Gunn his tweets were from 2008 and 2011, quite some time from when they were resurfaced in 2018. The problem here is that people are acting as if Gunn said these things today, and his own personal growth and change as a person is not being accounted for; I personally know that regretfully I've said some horrible things in the past that I would be absolutely disgusted with myself if I had said today, but I have changed since I said those things and I am not that person anymore, as I imagine James Gunn is too. As a result of this my eyes were opened to the dangers of social media and old posts and as a result I had a clear out of all my social media accounts, deleting anything that didn't represent who I am today, but these posts will likely live in a databank somewhere still. To conclude, people should absolutely be held accountable for their actions online but we should not become too mechanical in our assessments of fellow human beings, as with time, people can change and where possible we should try and forgive. BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 11:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Again another well written and well thought out response to the Wiki Exercise#1 I like the way you have expressed what is also a deep concern of mine. The privacy of online platforms and how much we have all shared over the years. Many of us started sharing data about ourselves as far back as out early teenage years. Many of us would be so young with no reins to keep us on the straight and narrow. We all explore and we then hit the delete button where we see fit but as you say. Somewhere in a databank our usage and history of usage can be traced. Why they resurface and are applicable as a means for judgement and dismissals in various aspects of our lives today; especially if they are more than 10 years ago can be somewhat unfair. We seem to now exist in a day and age of transparency and accountability. I would love to live off the grid. But entering that bit of information here means this simple single desire is no longer private. Well written contribution to you my colleague BigFeetMan

AuthenticEnough (discuss • contribs) 11:19, 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 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) 12:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2 - To What Extent Are My Online and Offline Identities Aligned?
How does the way that you present yourself online reflect who you are?

I represent myself online in through many different channels. Most of my online representation online comes though social media channels, which I think represent me well, but there are certainly differences in my personality online as opposed to how I act in face-to-face situations.like many others of my generation is a presentation of what I believe is my best self. To use some of the terminology employed by Jill Walker Rettberg in Self-Representation in Social Media, my social media use,  What I mean by this is that I rarely post on my Facebook account other than to share good news or perhaps of photo of me and my friends on a night out. This is not a true representation of myself as I am only sharing small parts of myself to the world, and if someone were to see my social media they would only see a small snippet of my personality. To contrast this behavior with my face-to-face personality I would say that I am quite a quirky, friendly and humerus person, but I do not always share things like this on social media as humour can very easily be lost in translation online. To summarise, I try to be as honest as possible with my portrayal of myself online, but quite simply I do not share all of my life on social media and the wider internet and therefore the version of myself on the internet is not indicative of my true self.

In what ways has your online identity changed over time?

Like most people in their early twenties, the internet and online culture is something that I adopted at a young age, rather than being something that I was born into. My earliest memories of the internet was simply going on Youtube with my friends and using MSN to stay in touch with my friends from school in the evenings and weekends, but these habits evolved over time. I was twelve when I made my Facebook account and my identity on it has changed since massively. I used to use the website all the time, updating my timeline almost as if it were a blog and to post memes on my friend's walls, but almost a decade later that is something I would never do now as I am far more cautious about publicly sharing information. My online habits could be defined as being far more personal than they are now in the sense that the internet was something of a novelty at the time to me and something to use for fun and entertainment. However, although I still use the internet to share memes and funny videos with my friends, I am often online for practical and business related reasons, such as accessing university materials and searching for internships.

Does each of us really have one fixed identity, or are they multiple?

I definitely believe we each have multiple identities, be it online or offline. When online our behaviour is often shaped by the website which we are accessing and behaviour between people on websites such as Facebook and LinkdIn differ massively as people use them for different purposes. This is the same at a face-to-face basis I believe as people act differently depending on who they are around or depending on the context they are in, such as a professional or casual environment. BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 17:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

(I must apologise for the lateness of this assignment, I was very unwell since the end of last week and over the weekend however I understand this is not an excuse and take full responsibility for the failure to meet the deadline set) BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 17:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3 - Annotated Bibliography Exercise (Part B)
'''Jenkins, H. (2010, January 9). Fandom, Participatory Culture, and Web 2.0. Retrieved from http://henryjenkins.org/2010/01/fandom_participatory_culture_a.html'''

Within this blog post Jenkins looks to relate the cultural impact of Web 2.0 to fandom and participatory culture. This comes about organically within the text as Jenkins outlines a class which he is preparing to teach at UCLA. Although only a brief text, Jenkins provides an interesting angle on Web 2.0 and the cultural impact which it has had within fan communities. Jenkins also provides a lengthy reading list in this text which could prove to be incredibly useful for further research. Henry Jenkins is a media scholar and has published extensively within the area of ‘fan studies’ and so this source is incredibly useful for research on Web 2.0 and the cultural impact it has had in such areas. However, this article is not without its limitations. One such limitation is the date of publication, January 2010, making this article quite outdated considering the rate at which the internet and web culture has evolved since then. Another limitation is that this article only provides a small insight into the impact of Web 2.0, and so further research will be required. To summarise, this article provides a strong starting point for research into the impact of Web 2.0 on fan culture, but further research will certainly be required before any conclusions are drawn. BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 19:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

What kind of platform is Wikibooks?
Undoubtedly, Wikibooks and its sister projects such as Wikipedia and Wiki Commons are collaborative platforms. Scholar Tim O'Reilly defined the Wikipedia model as "a radical experiment in trust" in which any web user could add entries or edit existing entries in this online encyclopedia. Although Wikibooks differs from Wikipedia in terms of its content, the core premise remains the same in that it relies on users employing the principles of collective intelligence. Some of the core principles of Web 2.0 can be recognised within Wikibooks, especially those of user interaction. Websites which have features of Web 2.0 are heavily reliant on users uploading content and engaging with one another in comments sections. This is certainly the case with Wikibooks as users contribute to projects and will interact with each other on discussion pages in order to coordinate their efforts. With this in mind it could be said that Wikibooks is part of participatory culture.

In what ways is visibility emphasised, and why?
Visibility is something of importance on Wikibooks, especially in terms of policing the website. Users have a certain level of anonymity in that they can choose their username to have their identity protected, but in order to contribute to an entry a user must be signed in, making them accountable for whatever is posted and therefore traceable if they are in breach of the code of conduct. This level of visibility is something which is essential in order to combat deliberately false entries uploaded by online trolls. Another measure on Wikibooks to highlight visibility is the presence of the "edit history" tab at the top of all entries, within which all edits from any user can be seen, again allowing for accountability of actions.

Aside from this though users can be as visible, or as invisible as they like.

In what ways can it be used to help facilitate collaborative research?
From my personal experience with Wikibooks, I can say that it is a fantastic tool for collaborative research. I worked on a chapter of the book Debates in Digital Culture 2019. Within this chapter of the book eleven other users were also contributing, most of whom I had never met, yet we were all able to work collectively to produce our chapter of the book. The 'Discussion' section of the chapter was particularly useful as part of this collaboration, allowing us to communicate effectively with one another over and to coordinate our research.

In what ways does Wikibooks foster a community?
There is certainly a community aspect to Wikibooks and the other sister wiki projects. The community is much more welcoming on these platforms than some other online websites might be due to the accountability of the website and also the fact that active users on these websites are likely contributing to the growth of the website and helping out new users is one way in which this can be achieved.BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 21:57, 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:
 * Good. Among other things, good contributions 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 formatting, 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, discussing this in a transparent way with fellow researchers on the Discussion Pages. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.

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:
 * a number of contribs spread out across most of the project period, including one or two classed as “substantial” according to the above criteria.

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

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

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.
 * Good

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:34, 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.


 * This work is at the lower end of this grade band because of both a very late piece of work (Ex2) and also very short comments for the peer-review elements, 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.


 * 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 quite 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: evidence of critical engagement with set materials; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material – ok.


 * 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 ok, but with room to improve.


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)