User talk:Blythenisbet

Hey! My name is Blythe Nisbet and I am working on a Digital Media and Culture class project at Stirling University. Blythenisbet (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is a link to my current project: Digital Culture and the Environment.

To What Extent Are My Online and Offline Identities Aligned?
On social media platforms where I am connected with friends and family, I alter how I portray myself based on what others might think. This means that online representations of myself, or my online identity, differs somewhat from my real-life identity. The way I present myself online somewhat reflects who I am, but usually only the good parts. My online identities vary from platform to platform. On online gaming platforms, I have little personal information available and enjoy the anonymity a Gamertag provides.

On platforms where my identity is anonymous, or where I am connected with strangers, I alter my identity much less. My online identities have changed over time and I tend to post less frequently on all platforms. However, I regularly use messaging apps. This is because I prefer to connect with friends and family privately with fewer observers - thus I can be more like my ‘real’ self.



These identities have also changed over time because my ‘real-life’ identity/identities has/have changed over time. Things which interested me when I first made my social media accounts are no longer of importance, and I am less likely to share certain content. People have a powerful role in shaping our identities, including mine. As analysed by Bullingham & Vasconcelos, Goffman argues that “individuals have both expressions that they give and those that they give off”, they state that “impressions that the individual intends to produce are communicated, but with the latter, impressions that were not intended to be given are received by the audience.” (Bullingham & Vasconcelos, 2013). Therefore, impressions which I intend to give off also come with impressions I have no control over - limiting how much of my online identity I can control, leaving the rest up to others. My online identities have stayed the same somewhat, in that I am always conscious of what I post and think about how others would hypothetically react.



I believe we have multiple identities - or that our identities are so fluid that they can be changed situation to situation. Most reasons for any change in my online and real-life identity has been based on other people. When selecting images to post I would select those which represent aspects of myself I would most want others to see. For example, a party or holiday rather than aspects of my day-to-day life such as travelling to University. Zizi Papacharissi observes this behaviour in college students, as “College students consciously upload and tag displayed photographs, thus selecting certain subjects and events to emphasize.” (Papacharissi, 2010, p. 2). In my experience events such as prom or weddings would be chosen. This is likely because these events are celebrations where I would likely be my happiest - a feeling I want to share with others. I would avoid showing moments where I am sad or frustrated as this would not create the representation of myself I want them to see. Similarly, at these events, I would also want to appear happy in conversations for the same reasons.



Bollmer’s chapter on Identities and Performances shows his view which aligns with my experience of online identities, that identity “relies on how the materiality of a medium permits identity to be performed.” (Bollmer, 2018, p. 115). My online identities are fluid. This is because my identities constantly change as I do, although some aspects remain fixed as my main concern on most platforms is what others may think. Bollmer’s specific focus on medium is much more important in my experience, as clear differences can be observed between my online identities on different platforms. Blythenisbet (discuss • contribs) 22:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography Entry B


'''Røpke, I. (2001). New technology in everyday life – social processes and environmental impact. Ecological Economics, 38(3), 403-422.'''

Røpke analyses how new technologies impact the environment. Røpke examines this using a qualitative empirical study of families’ acquirement and use of technologies and aims to contest the view that new technologies offer only solutions to environmental issues - as despite this the production of these technologies is damaging. Røpke breaks down a taxonomy which details the replacement of a range of technologies. This article is useful as it relates to Digital Culture and the Environment, specifically media production, as environmental impact from new technology is explored. One limitation of the article is that it is somewhat inconclusive. Røpke concludes that in the long term this correlation is speculative, and the field requires more empirical studies. However, in the short term technological change contributes to growth in material consumption and therefore damages the environment. This work gave me an insight into the complexities of technology's mixed impact on the environment. Blythenisbet (discuss • contribs) 18:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

What are Wikis?
Wikibooks is an open-access online platform with a library of collaborative textbooks. Wikis, generally, allow contributors to conversate via 'discussion' pages on Wikibooks and 'talk' pages on Wikipedia. On Wikis such as Wikibooks, each contributor is equal in their editing privileges, as stated by Ruth and Houghton: "All wiki page edits are open for debate and critique from any angle by any member of the community."

Visibility is an essential aspect in defining Wikibooks, as books are visible to essentially everyone with an internet connection, thus, information is easily sharable and accessible. Visibility is also important in the development of books and discussions, as ‘contributions’ are linked to individual users and are easily viewable to all users - ensuring transparency in which users participated what to the final project. This visibility allows users to keep track of each group members progress - for instance in a Wikibooks collaborative university project such as ours, each student can be tracked by other group members in order to stay updated on the respective group members progress. This is also extremely useful for teachers and assessors, as students can be graded based on their easily visible contributions.

Wikibooks discussion pages especially facilitate collaborative research - as in my project on Digital Culture and the Environment, I observed the ways in which users can plan, share and execute various ideas through open online communication. Our groups contributed individually to a larger project. We achieved this through open communication on Wikibooks 'discussion' pages - through sharing thoughts, sources and other information. We then collaborated on the final 'book' page by using our previous discussions and ideas.

The community is another central aspect of Wikibooks, as an online community of people choose to collaborate on projects across the world. In a journal article on Wikibooks in Higher Education, Ravid et al found that the word most associated with Wikibooks was 'communal' at 16%. This was followed by the words 'education', 'information', 'free', and 'open'. These associative words summarise well what Wikibooks is. Ravid et al held a study on the application of wiki technology to academic textbooks. In this research, they concluded: "What is clear from this data is that a Wikibook is a tool that users view as having the possibility for collaboration and community." On Wikibooks, a 'digital commons' is created. Wikibooks is a space that creates the feeling of communal ownership - as everyone is able to edit, discuss, criticise and create. Some may suggest that wikibooks offers a form of online emancipation.However, I would argue that Wikibooks are not entirely free, as there are still unwritten rules and expectations on Wiki sites. 'Wikibookians' may be entitled write and edit freely, but this edit may also be edited or criticised by someone else. This means that any Wikibookian can have their work tampered with for better or for worse. This is similar to social media in that creators shape what they write around who might read it.

In conclusion, Wikibooks is a visible, communal, and collaborative resource. These values can also be observed in successful wikibooks contributors, as stated by Lin et al: "an effective Wikibookian needs communication, collaboration, technology, and writing skills as well as extensive patience." Blythenisbet (discuss • contribs) 17:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments
Hey! First of all, I'd like to take a second to tell you how well this is formatted. The pictures are not only relevant and placed well, but the captions relate to your article directly. Your perspective on anonymous identities is especially interesting. I feel like the general consensus on large anonymous userbases is overwhelmingly negative due to unregulated anonymous sites such as 4chan and 8chan being notorious for their vicious rhetoric. Because of these conflicting views I would have loved to see another source relating to anonymity specifically. Other than that - a good read where you link academic sources to your own experiences, further cementing their relevance to the topic. Well done :) Springicon (discuss • contribs) 21:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)springiocn

hola! I definitely agree with the comment made above! This written piece is extremely well laid out, it looks really professional and in turn is easy to follow. I like how you adapted the captions for each image to fit with exactly what you discuss during your essay, this differentiates it from others work as its more personalised. I also like how you made sure to pick sources relevant to your current life - linking it into University and student life. I found the academic sources you picked related well to the specific area you chose to focus on. Overall, really enjoyed this read, good job! Seethruspecks (discuss • contribs) 23:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hiya I really enjoyed reading your piece, it really made me reflect on the way I perceive my identities online, particularly your point as to the differing levels of ourselves that we end up presenting on different social sharing sites. your point about this sense of having varying levels of anonymity I find interesting. Also the separations of how you share and that this affects the way in which you present yourself. Your piece made me reflect on my own in that I argued slightly differently about the things we choose to share, and made me re-evaluate some of the opinions I have formed in process of this exercise. Your work is also well laid out and constructed in a way which is easy to follow. Ohmygoldfish (discuss • contribs) 20:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I thoroughly enjoyed reading your piece, I related to your arguments debating varying identities depending on different social profiles. This essay is formatted well; easy to read and to understand as well as use of suitable images. I think the balance between your personal opinions and academic sources helped arrange a diverse argument with depth.

I specifically enjoyed how you explained your identities as 'fluid'. I think this is a very positive way of viewing our various identities online and the fluidity of what we can share is what makes social media profiles so appealing. This is a refreshing take on this discussion as many would choose to focus on the negatives of multiple personalities and choices online whereas I think it is an important reminder of freedom related to social media. All in all, a well structured piece of work that explores several reasons to why users choose to share varied information depending on platforms. Your personal opinions have factual and academic similarities and this provided original thoughts to the argument discussed. Hysterichattie (discuss • contribs) 20:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello again! I really enjoyed reading your bibliography exercise. I think the source you have chosen is particularly important to the essay at hand. The topic of technology and its impacts is definitely a broad spectrum and can be applied to media production and its impacts in numerous ways. Bibliography wise, all cited correctly and the use of image appropriate. Amazing! Hysterichattie (discuss • contribs) 10:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Blythe, really liked your work on your annotated bibliography. The piece you have written about follows a similar theme as what I have been reading. I found your writing to be insightful and helped sumarise the piece before I read it, I found reading your annotated bibliography first, before reading the article really helped me manage to understand it on a deeper level. Looking forward to reading more of what you have to write! Ohmygoldfish (discuss • contribs) 13:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I really enjoyed reading your piece on defining wikis. I especially think your thoughts of education as a motivator behind e-books is true and similar to my own thoughts. I find your essay insightful and it provides a clear definition of Wikibooks, something I struggled myself to do! As always, well structured and presented clearly as well as appropriate images and sources! Hysterichattie (discuss • contribs) 22:35, 6 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:
 * 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:
 * Good record of engagement during the project period, mainly a larger number of smaller contribs, as well as a smaller number of contribs that could be deemed substantial and a couple of significant contribs. Perhaps a little more consistency and frequency, as well as a few more larger elements of contribution would have made a difference. That said, what is here is of very good quality, sometimes excellent, and you have evidenced good management of process and workflow.

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

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * Clear delegation of tasks
 * Excellent
 * Clearly labelled sections and subsections
 * Good
 * 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) 15:52, 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 at the lower end of this (admittedly high!) grade band, so there’s possibly a little 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. That said, this is well written, well researched, and well organised. Well done!


 * Very good use of the wiki functionality and markup which went a long way towards 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 framed some of your responses as reflections in an attempt to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!). Also that 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 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: excellent use of wiki markup and organisational skills.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)