User talk:ConnorB044

I will be using this as evidence for my contributions to class projects. ConnorB044 (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion
Who you are as a person is not directly reflected through your online presence. However, it has been said, “Social media are platforms that combine what we used to think of as public with what we used to think of as personal communication.” (Meikle, Graham, 2016) Meaning the familiar or private side of people and their identities have become more public due to Social media sites like Facebook and Twitter.

My online presentation of identity can differ slightly from the person I am in a face to face situation. I feel less confident in person. Hiding behind the keyboard and having anonymity has an influence on my online profiles. There are however similarities present in my online and offline identity this being my pleasant nature. The biggest difference, therefore, being in my confidence.

As I have grown up, my online profiles have too. As I have engaged more in politics, my online opinions have become stronger. As I have grown in education my grammar and punctuation have improved. Confidence comes with age. Along with improvements in; Opinion, Grammar, Punctuation, and usage of emoticons. With the continual evolution of my online identity, one must consider the continuity. Have any characteristics remained the same? Yes, my outgoing personality and sense of humor have remained the same over the years. We grow based on life experiences. Growing with age brings new insights and with it changes in identity. That does not mean that fundamental characteristics will change too. But what impacts and shapes our identities? I think idols or influencers can have a big impact on shaping an individual's identity. It could be in how one conducts themselves, their behavior, language, etc. Online influence can also impact how we view ourselves. Instagram tells us what beauty looks like and how you must act. These messages are fed to the younger generation from a very young age. This can have negative implications for mental health. There is also the social construct of F.O.M.O. (fear of missing out) to consider. This might influence the volume of posts you put out “…where selfies are currency for the mobilisation of identity in exchange.” (Tony D. Sampson, Stephen Maddison, Darren Ellis, 2018) What is being said here is that selfies posted online are used to create an online identity or platform. Feeding back into the need or F.O.M.O. associated with Social Media. However, it's not just people that can influence us. It can be places, situations, circumstances, and countries. There are aspects of an identity that are fixed but based on a situation or circumstance one's identity and conduct may vary. ConnorB044 (discuss • contribs) 00:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

FEEDBACK
I found that going down the route of talking about your online identity in terms of confidence was apt in the sense that almost everyone can relate; i fully agree that it is the central attribute that differs between most offline vs. online personalities. I also think that you made an excellent point in talking about F.O.M.O. - something i never thought of for my mini essay - as without it and our need to show off our experiences to compete with others we wouldn't be in such a cycle of documenting, editing and uploading. You mention continuity, in terms of time and aging; do you think that in the present we all have continuity throughout our social media profiles? Does the Instagram you appear the same as Facebook you, or Twitter you? I personally feel that as we move from platform to platform our identities differ slightly. For example, the typical presence of parents/family on Facebook, certainly in my case, means that often our Facebook profiles are more toned-down than, say, your Instagram or Snapchat account. Size3feet (discuss • contribs) 22:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You’ve brought an interesting point up regarding how your presentation between offline and online can differ over how you come across, one area being more confident and another less confident. It was something I never considered when writing my own discussion piece and when thinking about this, I’ve noticed that I am more vocal, chatty and extraverted online while in person I can be rather introverted choosing my moments to comment. I feel there is something that makes us feel more protected when talking online, like a form of shield is around us so if anyone disagrees, then if they disagree with the view then their feelings do not feel as harsh or even present.

This reminds me of a time on Twitter where someone decided to “troll” me regarding Formula One, claiming I knew nothing, was a child and never been to a race. In the end I used real examples to dissuade their actions, something I very much wouldn’t have done in person, where I likely would have just turned around and walked away rather then confronting. Does this mean that our online presence is able to defeat social anxieties that we face today?

I like that you brought up F.O.M.O as it’s also something I failed to think of at the time, but now thinking about the subject, I realise that I’ve been guilty of joining in with this, such as when friends joined Facebook for the first time, I had to join in, in fear I was missing out on something special, or another example where a topic is brought up online and due to past experience of visiting what is talked about, I have to join in or post something relating to it, purely in fear of missing out, which on reflection might not be required but the thought of missing out on contributing to the discussion can be quite a driver in the actions behind making such a post. Beardoin-AS (discuss • contribs) 04:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Annotated Bibliography
Fuchs, Christian, 2013: Socail Media a Critical Introduction, Chapter 2

In this chapter, the author discusses the internet as a techno-social system. He says that the internet and therein Social Media is a cycle of Social Structure > Enabling / Constraining > Actors (People interacting) > Agency. Then it goes back to Social Structures and the cycle continues. Fuchs then goes on to discuss Max Weber's definition of Social Media dynamics saying that for social interaction to occur and have validity, two or more people have to actively interact with one another. This Chapter discusses the power dynamics between users (us) and the used (social media). This chapter supports my research into Social Media Movements in terms of discussing the Characteristics of Social Media. I will, therefore, be using this chapter as a secondary resource to support my research in Social Media Movements. ConnorB044 (discuss • contribs) 12:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

What ARE Wikis?
When someone mentions Wikipedia in a conversation the chances are you know what they are talking about. But what exactly is Wikipedia and for that matter, what are Wikis? Wikipedia has many different platforms including Wikibooks, WikiCommons, and WikiHow. These platforms fall under the Wikimedia umbrella. Established in 1995 by Ward Cunningham, the platform we now know as Wikipedia was born. Lund explains that Wikipedia allows "people to share and edit a collection of linked web pages using only a browser." Indeed that is the premise of Wikipedia, originally known as WikiWikiWeb, but can we say the same of Wikibooks and WikiCommons? Arguably, they are one and the same although they serve different purposes the foundation of each platform is the same; the sharing and editing of information and data via the internet. Be it research text or images used to support and illustrate your argument, Wikibooks and WikiCommons both allow the user to share and edit articles and research projects. In my brief but enjoyable experience using Wikibooks on a collaborative research project, I have found that it is the perfect platform for such work. Access to an online community that supports and peer-reviews work is incredibly valuable for anyone taking on new research studies. It is also useful as a teaching tool for Universities. Although it is not a so called Social Media Platform, the Umbrella of Wiki does foster and sustain an online community, just of a different sort. Wikis are fast growing in the online community "The total number of edits on all Wikimedia projects as of August 2013 exceeded 1.9 billion". That number will have greatly increased in 2019, with new edits being posted every day. The feedback and contributions from other Wiki users allow for a community to flourish and support each other's work. Having a dedicated help page for those that may be new to the Wiki family is also an invaluable tool to have. This creates the perfect space for users to ask for help and receive quick and easy advice on what they are doing. Although Wikimedia platforms allow you to work on other users projects and contribute freely, it is not a free for all. Wiki as a whole has strict rules and regulations. The Terms and Conditions under which we must operate, do not allow users to be disrespectful, crude, or work outside the rules of the law. These rules are in place to ensure a safe working environment for all users. A breach of these rules have serious ramifications that could end with your privileges and in turn, account being revoked and deleted. What are Wikis? Wikis, as outlined above, are information platforms for users to share and edit. It can be used as a teaching tool, or indeed for personal research purposes. The possibilities continue and with the growth in the online community, it is safe to say that there could be much more to come from the Wikimedia family. ConnorB044 (discuss • contribs) 12:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

hey! you've written a good piece here. I like that you gave some Wiki background, it added to your essay nicely. If i was to give an tips i would say that you could have spoken about the differences and what makes each Wiki unique in a little more detail. For example, Wikipedia is more of a competitive platform with more of a focus on popular culture compared to Wikibooks which is collaborative rather than competitive - although 'competitive' and 'collaborative' aren't complete opposites they offer a tension/ difference. Additionally, Wikibooks is more educational rather than focused on quick knowledge and pop culture. Size3feet (discuss • contribs) 21:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello there! I have really enjoyed reading your work here! I found many similarities in the way you approached this exercise with the way I did, but I have to claim, that is not the reason I enjoyed reading your piece. The reason I enjoyed reading your piece is because you gave some very useful insight into the foundation of the platform, something that I was not familiar with at all! I think you made a very good start doing so, and introducing how this platform became what it is today. I also liked your straightforward and grounded establishing sentence in the very beginning, I think many of us can relate to the feeling you are recalling. You then moved on briefly discussing your own experience, which was followed by the sentence `(A)lthough it is not a so called Social Media Platform, the Umbrella of Wiki does foster and sustain an online community, just of a different sort`. I think you are making a good distinction here: a platform do not need to fall under the category of `social media platform` to foster community and collaboration. In the case of the wikis, it is quite the opposite: I believe that precisely because wikis do not have a social feature, the platform can truly be a place of professional cooperation and collaboration. It fosters and sustains a different kind of online community, one which is united by the desire to create and inform, to educate and learn.

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:
 * one or two substantial, but the volume and frequency just isn’t there.

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

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * Clear delegation of tasks
 * Satisfactory
 * 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) 15:09, 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.


 * Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. As it stands, this isn’t bad, but could have benefitted from a little more attention to detail and organisation.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, if a little brief, and you omit the final response to Wiki Ex4, which was a crucial oversight on your part. 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.

General:
 * Reading and research: evidence of critical engagement with set materials - ok; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material – ok. One of your posts came in marginally late.


 * Argument and analysis: well-articulated and well-supported argument -ok; evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position) – a little thin; evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections) – again, room for improvement; evidence of independent critical ability – needs work


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)