User talk:Cantthinkofanyname

Hello, this is Tiffany Chong. I am currently a student and I am working on a project about digital media culture in this spring 2019. Cantthinkofanyname (discuss • contribs) 23:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

How does the way that you present yourself online reflect who you are?
I remembered watching a TED talk that is presented by Sherry Turkle. The subject of the talk is “Connected, but alone?” In her sharing, she points out that Internet turns human beings from “connection” to “isolation”. Users are having a sense of loneliness as they are being taught to “perform” themselves and only let others to see their success. What we share can shape and develop ourselves to become who we want others to think we are. I reflect on this afterwards and I found myself is acting in a way similar to what Sherry has pointed out.

I am not saying that there is a huge difference between myself online and in a face-to-face situation. However, there are definitely, some distinct contrasts. For instance, I talked and acted energetically on social media. But the truth might be, I am very tired and just want to stay quiet on that day. According to Sherry, perhaps I consider a successful individual should be sociable and actively involved in their social circle all the time. Therefore, even though I cannot do that in real life, but on my social network sites(SNSs), I present myself to be such person. The term “performance” was being used far earlier than Sherry, by Goffman(1959), to refer to all the activities of someone which “serves to influence in any way any of the participants.” Other than that, contemporary scholars also argued that “identity is performed, in many interactions,” even in the context of virtual or online (Papacharissi, 2010). Whether I am performing another identity that are not exist in the real world, this is a problem I have been thinking of when considering the dissimilarities of my online and offline identities. I can only say that when I am online, I am exposed to more friends and strangers than I am offline. In other words, I might not talk or hang out with them in my free time, but I am their “friends” in those SNSs. My status and how I look recently are displayed to more people online than in my actual social community. Everyone, including me, are somehow becoming their own “performer” in the social media, allowing themselves to only revealed the vivid side of their life in front of their audience. This may be a new identity to them, and me.

In such case, what changes a lot over time is my “influential others.” In the past, when I was just a child, my family members and some of my close friends are ones that affect me. Yet, in these days, I am more aware of the thoughts of my online “friends”. For example, I like taking photography and sharing them to my family and friends since I was small. After I signed up for a Facebook and Instagram account, I began to shared them to more people by posting them online. I received positive comments and likes in those platforms. Since then, I was gradually more confident and keener on taking photos. In present days, sharing them online seems to be a must for me. Or I can simply say that, with Goffman’s definition of “performance,” I can develop an identity as a performer online as I believed my photos can bring out messages to my viewers, as well as influencing them in some ways. Meanwhile, the identity can be called a photographer rather than a performer so I believe identity is not necessary to be fixed as one, but can be multiple. Another interest of mine is to explore food all around my home city. I can also call myself to be a “foodie,” which is similar to a food critic, by sharing the restaurants and commenting on the cuisine there on my SNSs. This can also be my other identity.

Comment section
Good afternoon! I think that your examples and your own experience clearly illustrate the control we can have over our online persona. As you mention, the distinction between on- and offline identities can be explained in terms of "performance," as online it is easier for us, the users, show a part of us we would like the others to see. Your last paragraph also makes me think about how we can have multiple personalities online by sharing different thoughts and interests in the social platforms. However, in my personal view, these are all part of ourselves and do not represent a false identity, but a limited one. Overall, really nice work!--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 13:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Access culture: Web 2.0 and cultural participation
Valtysson, B., 2010: 'Access culture: Web 2.0 and cultural participation, International Journal of Cultural Policy', 16:2: 200-214. DOI: 10.1080/10286630902902954

In this article Valtysson analyses and links today's digital media platforms, especially for those that are considered to be Web 2.0 in two parts, which is cultural participation and cultural policy. The author brings about various scholars' theories and examples, such as the Elephants Dream project, to demonstrate how cultural policies play a critical role in regulating a networked digital culture. His research focuses on theories and terms that are used to describe and conclude the phenomenon of today's cultural society. The article is useful to our research topic as it relates culture to Web 2.0 in a large extent which is one of the major topics that our project aims to cover. The main limitation of the article is that Valtysson rarely touches on how, on a beneficial side, creations that are being produced inside Web 2.0 under permission culture and remixable culture of prosumers help build new cultures. This article can be the basis of our research, as it provides not only new perspective between Web 2.0 and culture for us to consider, but also rich sources of reference.

What are Wikis? What kind of resource are they?
A wiki is a website that serves as a collaborative platform for users to take part in its creation, by either creating new contents or editing them. It includes features like document collaboration, insertions of images and links, views of changes and distribute files history, as well as commenting towards other’s work (Munoz, 2012). With these functions, users are writing things, at the same time, reading other’s things under a context where high visibility is attained. They can always trace the attribution of the information, or who are making amendments to them. In other words, individual’s work can be subjective and contain limitations sometimes. However, Wikibooks provide platform for collaborative research and the with its functions, participants can find specific partners and make discussion with them, eventually reaching agreement for a more comprehensive and objective content. This can be achieved only when users are being able to view not only the contents created by others, but also what others’ comments towards self-created content. Wikibooks are especially being utilised in education purpose. It is like a new form of textbooks that are available online, offering “students” numerous benefits. This kind of “social constructivist learning,” according to Munoz, an Associate Professor of Marketing, helps a community to learn by interacting with one another (Vygotsky, 1978). They would actively engage in materials for a better processing and learning (Matthew, Felvegi, and Callaway, 2009). Another advantage is the enhancement of students’ digital literacy. Wikibooks appear to merge technology with the knowledge they acquired in classes. On the other hand, the “older” people or educators may have the assumption that only digital natives can make use of technology but they are simply the one to pursuit for studies and knowledges in a real life settings. Nevertheless, with the wikis, the young generation cannot be underestimated as they can attain both digital abilities, as well as digital literacy through the former superiority (Munoz, 2012). Additionally, those educators and scholars can also access the online resources and find them being useful. Such platform, thereby, fostering the community not only within the users themselves, but also the education industry in a whole. The question is, is contents in wikis really that influential to the community, or in other word, the today’s society that we are living in? There is an article talking about the use of Wikibooks in higher education. Surprisingly, there are Wikitextbooks that are being written with the technology and concept of wikis. It can be described as a new and beginning shift in the industry and it is yet to be explore in the future, but it is revealing a potential for online emancipation as the core of the field no longer only be those traditional and powerful publishers, but students and teachers are empowered with the such authorities (David, Kalman, Rafaeli, 2008). Wiki’s platform is gradually bringing the educational field and our society to a different age and level.

Comment section
Hi Tiffany! It is true that this platform lets its users develop any type of written work, using images, links, videos, etc., as well as to collaborate with other people around the world in order to make a group piece of work. The first weeks doing the Web 2.0 essay I couldn’t picture how 15 people could make up the 3000-word assignment, because as students we are used to work on our own most of the time. But as I did my research and went through the comments and contributions of our team, everything was working really well and we could divide from general to specific topics so that it made sense and was in a hierarchical way. As Tim O’Reilly refers to collective intelligence, “collecting answers from a large group of people lets you draw statistical conclusions about the group that no individual member would have known by themselves” (O’Reilly, 2005). The fact of being in constant communication, making new conclusions out of many independent perspectives everyday opens up many more possibilities of projections and knowledge.

While I was going through your writing, I saw that you make very interesting points and some of them relate to the ones I made emphasis on. One that mostly called my attention is about Wikibooks taking an important part on education more than being only for general knowledge. As I did my research, I found some good examples of its implementation. For example, in the University of Arizona since 2004 they implemented an LTC Wikis course for the students for educational technology purposes. In that course they reviewed systems, methods, and the impact they have when sharing information through the wiki discussion forums and blogs, as well as they were expecting comments back from those entries for further collective knowledge.

In addition to the above, there are many resources that agree on the same thing that wikis are useful for students but also to anyone interested on this type of technology, as it is very easy to use. As the authors Mark van Harmelen and Tom Franklin state “wiki technology offers a number of potential benefits for administrators, students and instructors, including the ability to share information online, to construct knowledge together, to facilitate collaboration and to enable social learning and peer feedback” (van Harmelen and Franklin, 2007). And unlike any other discussion board, here anyone can how own ideas relate to others to avoid repetition and identify similarities and differences.

I also liked that you mention about if this is influencing the community and that there is still lots to explore in the future. Technology is continuously advancing, and the problems that these services could be facing today, in the near future are going to be solved. As well as new technologies are going to be created. I recommend you reading this article published by Forbes in 2017. It mentions that at the moment millions and millions of volunteers are contributing with their work to make Wikipedia, and in the forthcoming years it may stay the same as a non-commercial public good, keep the same values, free and open; but the shape and form may evolve. This is what makes Wikipedia unique, freedom of speech. If you have any comments don't hesitate to contact. Emiliarosselli (discuss • contribs) 09:46, 10 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:
 * Very Poor. Often, contributions of this standard are quite brief, are structured poorly and are not spell-checked. They are often irrelevant, and offer little engagement with the concerns of the module or the assignment brief. Contributions of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be of a very poor standard and as a result it will be difficult for the reader or fellow collaborators to engage with the discussion.

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:
 * the engagement in evidence here is very inconsistent. Being inactive for the majority of the project period meant that you weren’t left in a position to build significant or substantial contributions over time. There is some evidence that you have made some effort to engage, but it is really a case of too little, too late to really get much out of the project.

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

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * Clear delegation of tasks
 * Very Poor
 * 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 fairly good work here. 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, if a little brief at times (especially Ex4). 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 – all 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 – a little improvement on expression needed, perhaps.


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)