User talk:Chiarabpapo

Hawyee! This is my discussion page for my class project. Chiarabpapo (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Wig.

To What Extent Are my Online and Offline Identities Aligned?
Due: Friday 15th March





In the same way that the written word offers more room for thought than its spoken counterpart does, our identity on social media will always differ from our behavior in real life: while our actions in the present world are subject to real time reactions, what we choose to share online can be heavily edited and controlled. Whether it be shots of our lives on Instagram or the most professional version of ourselves on LinkedIn, what we publish online is often a carefully curated version of our image. The platform that we choose and who we decide to share our content with can lead to multiple online identities, which can be vastly different from one another.

Personally, I found my identity online has changed so much over the years, and these changes have also influenced the websites I chose to establish an identity on. When I started using social media I was about twelve years old, around the time that Facebook was spreading around the Globe. Back then the idea of social media platforms was still something to be uncovered, so the majority of their use was based around appearances: I remember posting several pictures of my friends and I spending time together and obsessively tagging them on posts that we thought only we could relate to. I also recall sharing more frequently than I do now, and that my posts used to be more personal.

With time I have created more social media profiles on different platforms, some of which I still use right now, and each of them comes with its own identity. Through our online connections we are offered more opportunities to experiment with our identity, and the Internet allows us to do so mostly on our own terms. This can be especially helpful at a younger age, when people are trying to define who they are, but can always be useful when an individual needs a space to express themselves without the consequences that the real world would bring.

Nowadays I find myself using social media more sporadically than I did in the past. My preferred platform at the moment is Twitter, because it allows me to briefly share my thoughts and keep updated with current events and that is what I need right now. Upon reflection, I would say that Twitter is the platform in which I feel my online and offline identities coincide the most, because I share my thoughts in the same way that I speak in real life, although with less grammar mistakes. Even though I believe my personality shines through the most on Twitter, I realise that not showing my identity on the platform could be the main reason why: knowing that the people I interact with in real life will not be seeing what I post allows me to share my thoughts more freely than I would in my daily life.

I believe that our online identities should not be seen as a complete departure from our offline selves, but more of an extension of who we are in real life. As Ibrahim describes it, technology can be considered an extension of our senses, creating a mobile body that allows us to capture images in real time and to archive and retrieve theme on digital platforms (2018, p.38). In my opinion that is how social networks work best: as a way to share my thoughts and interests, but also a place where I can save some memories for a future dive into my past. Even though my online identity has changed over time, mostly because I have grown and am more aware of how my information can be used, I still believe that what I choose to post online represents a big part of myself, and that my online identities make up a big part of who I am in real life.

Response to Wiki Exercise #2
I would agree with you that our online selves are an extension of who we are offline. Even if someone sought to be completely honest and exactly as they are offline on an online platform, the elements of editing and curation built into the platforms themselves means we are always choosing how we are presented, so what this person would end up presenting would be their idea of how they are offline, a representation rather than something pure and undiluted. Of course, online and offline could be very close, or wildly different, but it would never be exactly the same.

I also agree about how different platforms can lead to different online selves for the same person. Like on Facebook maybe you are just uploading photos, sharing statuses to keep family up to date with what you're up to, but on Twitter you might vent crazily about whatever fandom you might most be into without any restraint. I think it's probably to do with perceived audience, who you're "performing" that online self for. SoylentGraeme (discuss • contribs) 21:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography (Exercise Part B)
Due: Friday 22nd March

Preece, J. (2000). Part One: Getting Acquainted with Online Communities, Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability (5-198). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons

In the first half of her book, Preece describes the basis of online communities, as well as how relationships form online, how people behave on the  Internet and the role social policies play on the way online communities function. The author used several academic sources alongside her independent research, which focuses mostly on sociability and usability of online communities and the way they can influence and are influenced by our daily environment. The chapters in this section are particularly useful for my research as they offer an essential foundation to build upon for the essay topics. The main limitation of the text as a whole is the fact that it was published almost twenty years ago, and since the online world evolves very quickly, this book is to be considered outdated. The first section of this book has formed an essential part of my early research, however it will not be used for in-depth information or for references to more recent aspects of online communities. Chiarabpapo (discuss • contribs) 23:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Collaborative Essay Critical Evaluation - What ARE Wikis?
Due: Friday 5th April



According to the websites’ overview, Wikibooks is an online collection of open-content textbooks, annotated texts, instructional guides and manuals. Since the texts are mainly for an educational purpose, entries need to be backed up by sources and citations. Anyone can create an account on the platform, and subsequently create a new page of content or edit pages that already existed.

One of the main features of the platform is that every user page and project page come with a separate section which allows for discussions and collaboration between contributors. During our project I found the discussion page to be especially useful, as myself and the rest of the group were able to communicate and exchange ideas without having to arrange meetings in person. The platform itself was highly resourceful, as it offers sections in which new users can ask questions to and receive answers from expert contributors. However, it does not offer online emancipation, because the users must abide to a set of rules in order to keep the pages reliable.

According to Preece’s definition of online communities, an online community is considered to be a place that is fostered by users sharing a purpose and who follow specific policies presented by the platform on which the community is based (p. 25, 2000). From this it can be gathered that Wikibooks and its sister platforms are online communities, since their running is dependent mainly on their users’ contributions.

I enjoyed the online community aspect, and even though it was not always easy to collaborate with such a large number of people on a singular project, I found that the discussion pages allowed more freedom for expression and helped in keeping every contributor aware of the progress. Another interesting aspect was the use of our own discussion pages for short essays, as that offered an opportunity to every contributor to share their opinion on various topics, as well as reading other people’s and leaving a response to their essays.

Large online communities, especially knowledge-based and user-driven ones such as Wikimedia platforms, can lead to negative aspects as well. Lanier argues that the main problem with Wikipedia and which also affects its sister projects is the fact that the people who edit its pages are individuals who are often committed to the topic they are writing about (p. 143-144, 2011). This often can often result in what are described as “edit wars”, which consist in contributors constantly editing a certain page to prove that they have more extensive knowledge on the topic. Chiarabpapo (discuss • contribs) 11:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Response to What ARE Wikis
Hi! Your general discussion is similar to mine and I agree with many of your points. I like the fact that you considered the individual user discussion pages rather than only the book ones, since somehow, I managed to forget to mention that in my own discussion! As well as your last point about the "edit wars". It is interesting how people with a common goal and similar interests get competitive to an extent where it becomes counterproductive. Meanwhile, they could focus on the learning aspect of these kinds of platforms and benefit from possible disagreements or differences in perspectives. In our group it got slightly difficult to organise and manage the big group, therefore we divided each other into smaller ones and worked within those. Although the platform provided space for everyone's discussion, within our group some people (by my understanding) were still meeting up in person, therefore even making it a bit harder for everyone else to keep up with their work since some decisions were made privately. So to an extent the public aspect of these platforms do help collaborative work. There were no "edit wars" necessarily, but when it came to final edits and cutting down the word count, it was a (kind of an opposite) struggle of no one wanting to edit down anyone else's work. No one wanted to remove anything that the other person had written, but also at the same time everyone thought their work was significant enough to not to edit down even their own work. So it seems to be an issue both ways.

Did you experience this within your own group project? Or did you see signs of someone trying to prove their expertise? I also did notice a few bits that I wanted to expand on. It is also interesting how online emancipation is a topic for discussion, even when the majority of the definitions provided regarding online communities clearly state that it is a platform with specific policies. Therefore, it is hard to consider any platform to be able to offer full online emancipation as they always have some restrictions on user contribution. You mentioned that the Wikimedia platform cannot offer online emancipation due to the set of rules that the website provides the users with. But do you think the rules contribute to other aspects (rather than only credibility) of the pages? Since everyone can edit and add information as they wish, in the end I do agree that the online behaviour guides they provide prevent people from "trolling". I talked about the social pressure aspect on my discussion. My point was that the guidelines might set certain social expectations and therefore also makes the already well-behaved users maybe think twice even what they're writing. This could therefore limit the freedom of expression for all the users. I agree with your points, but just was interested in hearing your/someone else's view on this :) Digitaldagmar (discuss • contribs) 20:06, 11 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:
 * 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.

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:
 * insubstantial – the volume and frequency required just isn’t evident

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

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * Clear delegation of tasks
 * Poor
 * 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.
 * Satisfactory

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:10, 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:


 * 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 upper end of this particular grade band.


 * Good use of the wiki functionality and markup. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would improve.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are especially good. 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 - yes; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material – yes.


 * Argument and analysis: well-articulated and well-supported argument - yes; evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position) - yes; evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections) - yes; evidence of independent critical ability – yes.


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)