User talk:Christiejayne123

This is my Wikibooks user discussion page. I will be registering and exploring discussions on Wikibooks as part of an educational project. Please feel to leave any contributions to my discussions. Christiejayne123 (discuss • contribs) 14:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1- Educational Assignment
The popular online community Buzzfeed is best known for it wide variety of content, including lists of funny Internet posts. This community has given an insight into the online identity of strangers, by posting certain posts from their social media sites.

Impressionistic issues relating to the online identity of an individual give an insight into how someone may present himself or herself online. Realism is a key issue related to impressionism, and identifies how accurate an individual’s persona online may be. Anyone can change who he or she are online, it is very simple, and as a result we may portray an inaccurate or exaggerated version of ourselves to the online world. Van Koten concerns himself with the idea of realism by exploring the narrative of an individual’s online identity.

The empirical view related to online identity outlines privacy and production and consumption as key issues in exploring someone's online identity. The consumption of an individuals work online may reach a far greater audience than was originally intended at its creation- for example being copied onto viral websites such as Buzzfeed. This also relates to the privacy of individuals online, as this may seem as a breach of privacy. However social media sites, such as Facebook and Twitter offer ways in which to make pages private and only viewable to those an individual sees fit. Due to these measures it can be seen that individuals are fully aware of the fact that a far larger audience than originally intended, may in fact end up viewing and sharing their content.

The modern generation use the Internet, and social media very liberally and are often blissfully unaware of the consequences of what is posted. However individuals who enter into social media are aware that it is possible for any number of individuals to view their content- unless privacy settings have been put in place. Despite this many do not change the way they act online, but in fact create a persona which may be far more favourable to the individual than their persona in person.

Overall websites such as Buzzfeed provide a good insight into the lives of other individuals, but also serve as a great source of entertainment by highlighting mistakes made by others on online platforms.

Christiejayne123 (discuss • contribs) 22:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
This is a clear, well thought out review of Buzzfeed, which begins to deal with some of the critical issues underpinning the site. The post would benefit from greater use of wiki markup (including links). Also make sure to include references where appropriate: who is Van Koten in paragraph 2? Try to avoid meaningless generalisations (e.g. "the modern generation use the Internet"). There are clear signs of engagement through your thoughtful comments, which are encouraging, but also include a degree of critical reflection.

"A post of this standard roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor: 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. " Sprowberry (discuss • contribs) 09:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Online Footprint- Educational Exercise
During this, a very digital age, it is very rare for someone to not have a presence on any form social media sites. Personally I am visible online through my active presence on a number of social media sites. I present myself online though Facebook, Twitter,Instagram, Snapchat and Pinterest.

In particular my visibility on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram is far greater than any other sites. However a glance at my Facebook account offers up a great deal more personal information by far. My profile provides sensitive information such as a list of relatives, my date of birth, employment history and even my educational history. A lot of this information is required in order to set up any form of social media account, due to this it can be seen that full privacy online is not always achievable, as sites require sensitive information to sign up in the first instance.

However I never feel that my security online is compromised, as I choose to share this information with specific people only- friends and family mainly. Personally I never accept a friend request from someone I don't know personally, or have never met. This self- imposed policy allows for my personal information, and anything else I choose to share on Facebook to only be seen by selected individuals whom I see fit. This is not however the case in terms of my usage of other sites, such as Twitter. I use this site in a different manner to others, mainly sharing my opinions on specific topics or events, and very little personal information. Due to this I don't feel I need to restrict what is visible to others on these platforms as my target audience, as well as the types of posts are significantly different. I don't have any privacy settings in place for any social media sites- except for Facebook- and this is on purpose. I use these mediums- mainly Twitter and Instagram- in order to reach a reach a larger audience, and gain as much traffic to the page as possible. This may seem like a very vain usage of social media, but this is the online culture I find myself amount in terms of friend groups and the common viewpoint of wanting an idealistic online persona. Therefore is can be said that my online visibility on these types of platforms is very moderated -by myself -and is in fact my idealistic view of what is acceptable.

My visibility and online footprint is something which does not concern me, as on sites where I sensitive information is available, I have security measures in place to protect myself and hide it from those who I do not wish to see it. As well as this the online persona I make visible to others is one I have thought out and consider to be the best image of myself I can present to the online world. Many would not agree with my viewpoint on online visibility- stating that one should protect themselves on all sites and provide as little personal information as possible. However I use different social media sites in differing ways and target to different audiences. As a result the information I provide about myself differs depending on the site, therefore ensuring that I feel comfortable on all the social media sites I use frequently.

Christiejayne123 (discuss • contribs) 19:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload!- Educational Exercise
There is an abundance of information one the internet, and it can be difficult to differentiate what is important and what is not falsified. It is easy for any individual to be overwhelmed with the amount of information they may find when searching a specific topic. However those who frequently use the internet to conduct research have found was in which to determine what information is legitimate and worth reading.

Distractions can come in a variety of forms on the internet, ranging from video sites such as YouTube, to online gaming and even social media sites. These sites can be a distraction from legitimate research, as they offer user generated content. User generated content can often contain a biased stance, or unnecessary information- such as personal opinions or experiences. In order to avoid this information online an individual must show an sense or restraint and concentration. This is however not so simple in this highly technological era, with access to the internet at the tip of our fingertips- in the form of Smartphones and tablet devices.

When choosing what information is the most relevant for the search being conducted the credibility of the website is paramount. Many websites have a reputation for publishing falsified or exaggerated information. For example The Sun newspaper is well know for publishing information, which has come from unreliable sources and contains information which should not be used for official reports or academic work. As well as this, unreliable information is often noticeable as being unrealistic in terms of facts and details. In this sense it may be obvious for someone this information should not be quoted or taken as a series source.

Overall there are many distractions in terms of an overload of information on the internet. This can come in many forms, but an individual must use their common sense and and sense of concentration when using the internet to research, in order to filter irrelevant information.

Christiejayne123 (discuss • contribs) 20:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments


I thought it was very interesting you mentioned the difficulty of differentiating what is important and what is falsified. I didn't even think to mention that in my blog post. That reminds me of a topic I learned in school a couple years ago, Native advertising. Companies actually pay to have their products and services mentioned in what are supposed to be news articles. Does that make a source less credible? For example the Atlantic magazine in the states ran a news story about the church of Scientology, and it turned out just to be an advertisement the whole time. http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/the-atlantic-apologizes-for-scientology-ad/?_r=0. I think things like native advertising add to the stress that is caused by the overload of information. Now not only do we have to worry about sorting through an abundant amount of information, we have to worry about if what we are reading is true or not. Kacollins95 (discuss • contribs) 12:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This is really interesting, I have never heard of Native advertising, but I have most definitely seen it in practice. However any form I have seen it in has been more clear to the reader from the start that it is an advertisement of some form. You are definitely right that this type of advertising adds to the stress of filtering information. We could waste time reading something we think is useful- or simply interesting- only to find out that it is a payed for advertisement with a very biased angle. With these types of advertisements popping up on the internet it is becoming more and more difficult to chose what information we should trust and what we shouldn't waste our time reading. Christiejayne123 (discuss • contribs) 19:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Kacollins95, I thought it was really interesting bringing up The Sun as a source of information not to be trusted. It is really quite awful that even in this modern an age, we still cannot trust this source of news as it could be falsified or biased. I feel as though national interest in the goings on of our country and others is increasing, and the sources we rely on are withholding and altering information? The media has an immense amount of power over what we know, learn, and think of certain issues, and sources like The Sun take advantage of that and act quite immorally. All they have to do is write an article about someone in a certain tone, and those less aware of their manipulation fall prey to it and internalise the attitude. It is quite embarrassing that people are more interested in power, status, and wealth, than giving the public the information that they want and need, than giving them the truth. Muir97 (discuss • contribs) 10:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You are definitely right about how the media has gained too much power in our daily lives. It is becoming more common for us to question whether or not an article in a newspaper is true or if it is exaggerated. The media have one sole objective- to make money. This shouldn't be the case they are supposed to act as a Fourth Estate and hold those in power accountable for their actions. This type of reporting is often very scarce among an abundance of articles or features containing false information or an unimportant topic. You are right the it is a shame that those who are more venerable to this deception will be forced to attain a falsified opinion of the world and current events. In order for everyone to be able to process the amount of information on the internet successfully the media must first stop publishing deceiving material. Christiejayne123 (discuss • contribs) 13:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account- Educational Exercise
The Wikibooks educational project required a number of students to collectively work together to complete the book entitled "An Internet of Everything". This project required a great deal of work and communication on the part of the students. In order to successfully undertake the tasks given a selection of groups were required to communicate both on and offline. Communication online provided the most depth for all students, with "Discussion" pages allowing for discussions regarding content, resources and writing techniques to be effectively undertaken. Offline discussions provided further information which did not necessarily relate to any actual content within the book- for example amount to be written, deadlines and general guidelines about the assignment requirements.

Gauntlett would describe this type of participation as having both political and civic value, as he states that Web 2.0 is about "harnessing the collective abilities of the members of an online network, to make an especially powerful resource". This most definitely applies to this project, due to the huge amount of participants in the form of students.

Banajis and Buckingham found that "The Internet’s interactive features are perceived as generally useful and entertaining, but also as banal: they are not seen to provoke extraordinary creativity and sociopolitical engagement or change in and of themselves." . Whilst undertaking this project it became clear that Wikibooks challenges this idea. This platform provides any individual with the ability to contribute to a discussion and can give way to creativity and engagement in political issues within society.

A major positive of this project was the flexibility involved. The ability to research and post findings at ones own convenience, took a lot of pressure off the assignment and gave the researcher the ability to go back and further develop points made at a later date. Students could also freely contribute at any time of the day. This is an important feature as Banajis and Buckingham found that 90% of young people use the internet at home, which as students may be more convenient later in the day.

A downfall to this project would be its set-up in terms of being called a "group" project. The groups provided had very little use, despite allocating a chapter for individuals to contribute to. Most individuals disregarded their original groups after starting the assignment, and having a topic to write about. Individuals were more focused on their own contributions than on that of the group.

Despite the group being almost irrelevant by the end of the project, having this be a group project allowed for the students to effectively contribute to the web in a fashion which can be collaborative. Christiejayne123 (discuss • contribs) 23:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
It's clear from the volume of contributions to the chapter and talk page that you have understood the importance of engagement. There's signs of collaboration and sustained engagement with the assignment. Unfortunately you have not managed the same level of engagement with the wiki exercises, which had an equal weighting. Make sure to follow all parts of the brief. Both the exercise and chapter contributions demonstrate a relatively good understanding of module concepts, albeit primarily superficial. It's important to spend more time fully considering the consequences of analysis rather than swiftly moving between subjects.

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives an excellent brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is an excellent range of concepts associated with your subject, and the effort to deliver critical definitions, drawing from relevant literature and scholarship, and your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is very much in evidence. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover an excellent range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, although some ideas and procedures more securely grasped than others
 * evidence of independent reading of somewhat circumscribed range of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument featuring variable depth of understanding
 * satisfactory level of evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * satisfactory level of evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections in discussion);
 * evidence of variable independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content to an appreciable standard (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Good engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of discussion pages using deployment of judgement relating to key issues, concepts and procedures

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 14:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)