User talk:Crs00039

Wiki 1
When it comes to millennials, any sort of communication is through online, but I, myself, am not actively involved. I have always preferred in-person one-on-one communication and I do not like having tons of information about myself available online for anyone to find and perhaps use in ways that are not appropriate. Even though I am not active online, I know I am visible because I do have many social networks and it is easy to find me online. After the discussion in the workshops, it is easy to say that being visible can take forms of any kind, such as social media, being on the news, being in someone’s picture, being in an article, or even just having a phone or a computer. It doesn’t matter if you are actively involved online to get information about you, therefore you are visible. The information available online about would be where I go to school, where I live, my interests such as movies, music, books, etc., my friends via social media, my work experience and clubs I am involved in via LinkedIn, moments of my daily life on Snapchat, and places I go to on Instagram. I choose to share this information to stay connected with my friends or family that I don’t see often or for future employers who want more information about me. However, I tend to limit who can see all the information that is available. This can relate to the idea of too much information as discussed in class, just my searching you name, tons of information come up about you and there is no way of hiding it. It does not matter if one engages in social networking or not because you are giving that information to people and they can share that on other websites or to other people and spread information about you. This leads to the idea of Always-on, always being connected to the world one way or another. As stated in the 5.1 video: Always-on, the boundaries are starting to blur between our public and private lives. It was also stated that devices and being always-on can affect our identity and behavior, as well as what counts as online such as our real life vs. our virtual life and is there a distinction between the two anymore. In my perspective, being online has lifted the line between our public and private lives because now people can post what is happening to them in real time on social media or someone can find information about someone’s life via the internet. Privacy has become non-existent. Being online can as well affect the way we identify ourselves and how we act not only towards others but ourselves. Many people have become obsessed with getting as many ‘likes’ as they can or ‘followers’ or even ‘friends’ that they post about anything or everything online without thinking about the outcomes that could occur. Being online is now part of our daily lives but it is important to draw the line somewhere.

Crs00039 (discuss • contribs) 12:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiki 2
Harrel, F. & Lim, C. (2017). Remaining the Avatar Dream: Modeling Social Identity in Digital Media. Communication of the ACM, 60 (7), 50-61.

This article focuses on addressing the use of avatars in digital media in the aspect of social identity and the relationship between virtual identity and physical identity, as well as the online relation of gender and racial stereotypes. The authors use data from research conducted to better understand, develop, and design virtual identities. They also use information from video games more specifically on their avatars. The research focuses on how people portray themselves online and how they create their avatar while also creating a new identity for themselves. They also analyze how a user’s identity start to blend and how values are embedded in technology. This article is useful because it goes into depth about how people portray themselves when creating avatars and how different it is from their actual identity. It is also useful on how stereotypes are shown through the video games and it can affect the way we interact with people of a certain race or gender. The main limitation of this article is that it focuses on how virtual and physical identity is affected by video game avatars instead on the social network online as a whole. In conclusion, this article our virtual identities are technical, and they are affecting our ‘human’ identity along with our actions, concepts, and thoughts. This article will help me develop my topic on online identity, but it will not be the focus of my research because even though it is useful, it narrows down to online avatars and I want to focus more on how people identify themselves on social networks. However, it fits into my research because online gaming has become very popular and it is important to know how that affects people’s actions.

Crs00039 (discuss • contribs) 17:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiki 4
While working collaboratively on a research topic, I found it a bit complicated but helpful at the same time. It was complicated because everyone has a different point of views and trying to write something together can be conflicted because everyone wants to take it on their route. On the other hand, it has been helpful working with others because people get to see different opinions that have come together to discuss a very important topic. To start off, Wikibooks is a collaborative project platform where anyone can edit texts or e-books. Wikipedia brings people together when it comes to research and it is about expanding knowledge world-wide not just academically but also socially and professionally. Wikibooks emphasis visibility by allowing people to share their opinion with evidence and people can respond to each other and discuss the topic. This is visibility because Wikipedia is very known especially as a place on where you can get authentic information about someone or something and people know it is accurate unlike finding information on Facebook or Twitter. Also, Wikipedia is usually the first website that shows up when conducting research, so it is safe to assume the information that is provided on the website is trustworthy. To help facilitate collaborative research, Wikibooks can be useful because you can share information that you found also your thoughts and ideas and you are able to expand on them to make them your own. From my experience, it was helpful to do collaborative research, especially on a broad topic because everyone got the opportunity to expand on a certain area that they were interested in and then at the end, we all came back together and put our research together. We were able to discuss everyone’s area of interest and see how they intertwine or are distinct from each other. Wikibooks fosters a community by allowing people to take credit for their work and as well collaborate with another user on specific research or ideas they have on their discussion page that they want feedback on or someone to help them expand on their research with them. Online collaboration has become to represent a digital common because the information provided online does not just have one owner anymore, it is shared with all the users of Wikipedia. As we continue to share information via the internet, our digital connections expand, and it comes to the point where we do not know who actually owns the information, so we have created a community where it can be used by all. I think that wiki platforms offer a form of inline emancipation because you are allowed to share information about absolutely anything without many restrictions expect it is important to cite one’s sources because then one is seen as credible. It is possible to research on the strangest things and one can find information about it or find others who just as interested in the topic and then work with them collaboratively at your liberty without limitation. Wikibooks is a great way to research and more people should sign up and start discussions. Crs00039 (discuss • contribs)

Comments
Hi Crs00039, I really enjoyed reading what you had to say about the collaborative essays, your insights were highly interesting. I totally agree with you that it was complicated at first because everyone has their own opinions on topics which can be good but frustrating at some points too. It’s good to have different perspectives when discussing a topic like online identity as people will create differing arguments which will flesh out the material. But differing perspectives also brings complications such as conflicting opinions which can generate confusion when trying to piece together an essay. I think the overall positives from participating in an online collaborative essay outweigh the negatives, I feel like when people come together to create something new, it’s always more exciting and leads to greater accomplishments. Before this module began, had you heard of Wikibooks? I had no idea it existed before starting this module, of course I knew all about Wikipedia because it’s a huge part of the online experience, but I had never encountered Wikibooks. Do you think you will continue to use Wikibooks to find information for other assignments in future modules? I think it could be used as a handy tool to find and collect information, for example it could be used for researching a certain topic or subject. I thought the part where you mention how Wikibooks is like a small community was interesting. The more I think about this idea, the more it makes sense. It does certainly feel like a small networked community, everyone helps each other to create something bigger than the individual, they work together to achieve their goals.

I found the ability to use links to references and other important sources one of the most useful things about Wikibooks. Using links was a great way to back up an argument and it provided a great opportunity to deliver more information to the users. In terms of usefulness, what do you consider to be the biggest advantage of using an online medium like Wikibooks for a collaborative piece of work? You mentioned that it was a great way to let each individual member expand their information on a certain topic, which is a great plus. It meant that the essay could have more depth to its arguments and these arguments could become more focused. If one group member was researching into one particular topic, it allowed other members to assert themselves to other topics producing a well-rounded informative essay. I am trying to think of any disadvantages that arise when collaborating on essays, and the only large one I can think of you have mentioned, that there may be conflicting interests when deciding on what to write. Did you find any part of the Wikibooks format complicated? Like inserting images or using the reply to username functions? Sorry about all the questions, I would just like to know how other people found these Wikibook assignments. Thanks Abfunkalicious (discuss • contribs) 19:16, 18 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:
 * 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.

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 clearly not the case here – only 2 days registered as having logged a contrib, 4 entries in total, and most of these were on 3rd April. When you did engage, these seemed to be genuine contributions in terms of moving the project forward, however, this really was a case of too little, too late.

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


 * This was minimal.

•	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


 * This was minimal.

•	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


 * This was minimal.

•	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 well.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:05, 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.

Posts of this standard do not address the assignment requirements. They offer little to no engagement with the concerns of the module. They are poorly written and comments are often extremely brief or missing. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.


 * Some improvement will go a long way to attaining a higher mark. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might have been useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and (especially for this, perhaps, the Understanding) criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets.


 * Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, if you had become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would have made a considerable difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – this is where you were able to pick up some marks, where the engagement with another user’s post was quite good. It falls some way short of the level of engagement and quantity expected, but there’s a real effort to try to solicit discussion.

General:
 * Reading and research: Some evidence of this in your annotated bibliography for example.
 * Argument and analysis: This would have been considerably improved through engagement, discussion and peer-review – all requirements of the wiki exercise briefs.


 * Presentation: Much more could have been done in this respect.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 10:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)