User talk:Celine Hunt

   Wiki Exercise Portfolio    

Exercise #2: Annotated Bibliography
Miller, D., Costa, E., Haynes, N., McDonald, T., Nicolescu, R., Sinanan, J., Spyer, J., Venkatraman, S., and Wang, X. (2016) How the World Changed Social Media. London: UCL Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1g69z35

In this article Miller et al. explore the popular concern that increase digital mediation leads to less authentic relationships than offline ones, the sociality in the age of social media and new possibilities for human experience and social relationships that have been created through the use of social media. The authors use data gained from their field sites including Brazil, China and Chile to better understand the two kinds of relationships: online and offline. Their research focuses on the social relationships in the social media age by using Goffman’s theoretical concept of framing to think through the relationship between online and offline. Miller et al. regard offline and online as two frames in our daily lives. The article is useful to my research topic, as Miller et al. discuss the impacts of social media and its ability to categorize social relationships. The main limitation from this article was the lack of evidence that scalable sociality encompasses the possibility that social media can be more intense and intimate than offline relationships. This article will not form the basis of my research but will be useful supplementary information.

Comments
Millers article sounds interesting. I think while we live in a world which is mostly dominated by social media and the continued participation in them, it is hard to interact during the offline life. It´s hard to find someone who talks about something that is not able to be seen online, almost everything is in the internet now. The part about the categorization of the social relationships is really interesting. I mean in a time where Tinder or Lovoo find the "perfect" partner for us, how are we supposed to live of life away from the social media? We meet friends online, we learn online and we work online. In each aspect of life are social media and when you decide to go offline, everybody is surprised. I think social media are an extension of our social life, but even not in person but online now. In my last job, we always emailed each other nethertheless we were sitting in the same building, just on different floors. It is like we´re getting lazy to interact with each other personally. Or at home, when my mom wants to tell me something and she does not comes up or calls me down, but writes me message via WhatsApp. Like we are cyborgs, but without knowing it. Akm00018 (discuss • contribs) 10:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Akm00018

Yes, I fully agree with the fact that we live in a world that’s dominated by social media. You bring up the concept of participatory culture which Henry Jenkins uses in this field of study. Now that I think about it, I have notice that there are more and more ways to be an active participant on social media which include consuming and producing content. For example, Facebook users are customizing their accounts by categorizing their friends into groups including college, co-workers, friends, family and even strangers. To answer your question, how are we suppose to live away from social media? I do not think our society is suppose to live offline. I believe that we are suppose to create a balance between living in the online and offline world. Celine Hunt (discuss • contribs) 23:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a very well written annotated bibliography. I enjoy the vocabulary you chose and the structure follows the guidelines. As for the article, I find that to be very interesting and it would be useful for my essay. I am writing mine on convergence, specifically the participatory culture that Jenkins discusses in his book Convergence Culture. The contrast between online and offline relationships is displayed through the participatory culture social media creates. Great read!

This is a very concise and interesting annotated bibliography. You do a great job of summarizing the main points of the research article, and critiquing it's content. I find the countries that the article chooses to focus on particularly interesting, especially in comparison to social media in countries like the US and the UK. Is there any reason the researcher listed as to why these countries were chosen for analysis? Overall, this was a job well done! Thanks for sharing! Mom00107 (discuss • contribs) 12:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the positive feedback! I agree, when I was reading the article I was a bit suprised with the countries they chose. In terms of comparing the social media platforms it made sense because you see the different ways in which countries do or do not use certain social media platforms. I think if they were to compare the U.S. and U.K. the results I feel would be similair. To answer your question, the researchers did not explain why they chose Brazil, China and Chile. Celine Hunt (discuss • contribs) 22:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

This article seems like it could be very useful in our discussion of the Always On culture and the tethered self. The annotation is very well written and gives us a nice idea what it was about and how it can be used to further our own discussion and collaborative essay. It is nice that you chose an article that uses an empirical study because it further strengthens your argument on the topic rather than using articles that just express opinions without having and true and useful background knowledge and studies to back up what claims they are making. I agree with @Mom00107 in that the countries of interest in this particular study are quite interesting. Maybe in our own research, we could look at which countries agree to the idea of using robots as companions as opposed to those countries who might disagree. I am unsure if there is much evidence and studies that look into this, but it would be quite interesting to see if there is any correlation. Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 15:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I found your annotated bibliography very interesting. The fact that we have two type of friendships; online and offline. What do you think of that statement- do you believe it to be true? If so, which friendship do you feel is more real. Great read. MTxPrincipessa18 (discuss • contribs) 16:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks,I am glad you liked it! I believe that we do have two types of friendships. Not only do we have two kinds of friendships but we also have multiple identities: online and offline identity. Do you feel like you have multiple identities? Which friendship is more real? At first, I believed that my offline friendships are more real than the online ones. I thought this because my 'real' friends were those who had my personal mobile number which I did not give out frequently. Since, we live in the digital era we have many ways to communicate which include:letters, phone calls,texts, emails, social media and etc. Now, I believe that 'reals friends' are those who stay connected through both the online and offline world. Celine Hunt (discuss • contribs) 22:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Exercise #3: Collaborative Essay Research
First of all, thank you for taking the time to respond to my annotated bibliography. As you mentioned, we really do live in a world where new media technologies including social media, mass media and the internet have become so embedded into our daily lives. There is a continued participation in them as well. The participatory culture that Henry Jenkins discusses about in his book Convergence Culture argues that individuals act as consumers and producers. For example, we may consume by owning a Facebook account but the individual can produce by sharing information, liking posts or even reacting to a photo. Another feature of participatory culture includes the customization of one’s account. In this article, Miller et al. talks about how Facebook and QQ (the Chinese social media platform) allows individuals to categorize their friends. For example: colleagues, friends, family, strangers and any other group you wish to create. Overall, I believe there has been a significant increase in the amount of participation that occurs within these platforms.

In the past years, I have notice that many social media platforms have updated their features to encourage users to use the service/apps. For example, Facebook installed reaction buttons which include Love, Haha, Wow, Sad and Angry Buttons. While Snapchat created a new feature which allows users to create or join group video chats with sixteen or more people. Therefore, I have two questions. 1) Do you believe the participatory component of social media is important to the existence of the platform? 2) Does the participatory culture impact social relationships?

When it comes to dating apps and services, I do not even know where to begin. I personally do not use Tinder and Lovoo to find a potential partner/lover. I am fully aware of the fact that people meet online and even start relationships. However, trying to find a real authentic relationship online to me sounds difficult. I feel this way because we have multiple identities. The online self and the offline self. I can easily imagine finding someone online but not actually being able to connect well because our online selves is different from our offline identity. With that said, do you feel relationships online are more authentic than the ones offline? If so, why?

Exercise #4: Collaborative Essay Reflective Account
Wikibooks is an online platform that allows users to share and consume information/content. Henry Jenkins participatory culture is very present on this platform. From my own experience, Wikibooks makes it easy for people to create an account and collaborate with others. Even though, many people have their own accounts, Wikibooks allows individuals to customize their own pages to a certain extent.
 * What kind of platform is Wikibooks?

When using Wikibooks there is great amount of visibility. In particular, with the collaborative essay individuals received points whenever they made ‘contribs’. That is why it was extremely important to put the four tilde at the end of each comment, entry and post. Wikibooks allows one to track the amount of work an individual has added to the collaborative essay. Also, it enables users to reply to others people’s pages and immediately even notified them. The always on culture Sherry Turkle mentions becomes relevant because this platform left notifications whenever someone tagged, replied, and commented on your page.
 * In what ways does it emphasis visibility, and why?

I found that this platform was helpful in facilitating collaborative essay. In particular, it was extremely easy to comment on others people post, If I felt like starting a conversation. In my experience, I really enjoyed how I was able to consume content other classmates were writing about. This allowed me to see the many different perspectives people had on the various topics covered.
 * In what ways can it be used to help facilitate collaborative research? (draw from your own observations from the project)

Throughout my time on this platform, I really felt that Wikibooks fostered a friendly community. I honestly did not think that this platform could do so. I noticed people were being very kind and respected each others views. I think because of the platforms visibility; users were not completely anonymous meaning people could not be rude to each other. Whereas on anonymous platforms people can have the online disinhibition effect that Suler covers.
 * In what ways does Wikibooks foster a community?

Wiki is a shared space where all kinds of people from across the world can collaborate with others and share Ideas. For our collaborative essay, we were able to meet face to face as well as in the digital realm of this shared space.
 * In what ways does online collaboration represent a digital commons?

I believe that the wiki platform does and does not offer online emancipation. First, I think it does because it allows users to add content whenever and wherever. As well as it allows them to consume whatever content one may be looking for free. However, it may not allow for online emancipation because other users can freely delete the material you added to the platform. I realized maybe that is why Wikibooks has such visibility. That way the individual and others can track any changes (including what is added, deleted and so forth) that have been made to their own account.
 * Do wiki platforms offer potential form online emancipation? Why/not?

Celine Hunt (discuss • contribs) 01:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: DISCUSSION, ENGAGEMENT, CONTRIBS

 * Engagement on discussion pages of this standard attain the following grade descriptor for contribs. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this 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.

Students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.


 * This was not the case here – you only logged a fairly small number of contribs, the majority of which were logged on 20th March and then on 4th April. However, when you did engage, these seemed to be genuine contributions in terms of moving the project forward. Some of the longer material included is noted as draft work, and some is noted as being wiki exercise portfolio work (neither of which can count towards this element – you cannot be marked for the same work twice).

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: o	Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial” o	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


 * Most contribs registered as being under 1000 characters, apart from three that could be classed as “substantial” or “significant”. Unfortunately, these longer ones are draft work or wiki exercise material – please see above comment. Some very useful content in here in the smaller contribs, including some structure and organisation – but I think you could have done more to register discussion and decision-making process here.

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


 * There’s some engagement with other users, although much more could have been done in this regard to give a full record of the group’s decision-making.

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


 * There is some evidence of this, and you seem to have instigated some of the organisation in putting the Discussion Page together, and structuring the essay itself..

•	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.


 * You conducted yourself extremely well. Engagement on other groups’ Discussion Pages would have aided this element considerably.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
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.

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.


 * Whilst this work is at the lower end of this grade band, and there’s clearly room for improvement, I think that you engage with the wiki exercises in a highly reflective, articulate manner. You tend to draw from your independent reading, as well as from some of the lecture and video presentation materials in your interactions with others. There are some exchanges with other users that suggest you have listened to what other people are saying and are contributing meaningfully to discussion. This is arguably the civic element of wiki that you are thinking about. Excellent good work generally.


 * The one area that lets you down perhaps is that you really ought to have made more use of the wiki functionality and markup. This 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. I like that you have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!) and also that you have engaged in discussion in an open and critical way.

General:
 * Reading and research: some evidence of critical engagement with set materials; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material in places.


 * Argument and analysis: posts show 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


 * Presentation: see above comment on wiki markup and organisational skills.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)