User talk:Danninotclare

Hello, this is my discussion page. This page will be used for several different wikiprojects and will be used to contribute and discuss ideas. Feel free to discuss your views on the page.

Danninotclare (discuss • contribs)

wiki project 1
Online Identity and Youtube. Youtube has become a platform for not only cat videos but also vlogging, beauty tutorials and fashion tips. It has created celebrities and has created a new way to portray an online identity and a life online. It has become a career to 'vlog ' (internet blog your day, week and life). By creating an online personality you can create ,in essence, an alter ego. By portraying a certain aspect of your life and only showing snippets you can create the perfect life. The life that is desired by others but this can also lead to a distorted image of self.

For example the eighteen-year-old Austrian Essena O’Neill had to quit social media because of the constant pressure on looking good and promoting an impossible lifestyle was risking her mental health. She spoke to the public about the detrimental effects that social media had created on her life and that because she was so busy on her online identity her own identity offline was unknown to her.

Online identity and offline identity has become entwined and societies reliance on social media (especially young adults, teenagers and even children)) has become very apparent to businesses and to young adults who have made there careers relying on viewers being interested enough in their life to keep watching their videos and the more viewers and subscribers a channel has the more influence it has. Using this influence not only has offline identity become an issue but also identity as a whole. And although there are role models on youtube and social media as a whole, they are still endorsed by companies and gain money.

Tanya Burr has created a makeup line and a books due to her success while her husband has gained a career on presenting movie premiers and a stationery line. Niomi Smart and Marcus Butler have created a healthy snacking service and Zoella designed her own shower care range(she even has a wax figure in Madame Touswords)

By watching someone's identity change into something we can only dream of, it changes our perspective in ourselves because we see people in a way that we have never been able to before. But also the social media professionals identity is compromised as they stop focusing on their identity and start focusing on their online one. Like everything technology and media has its downfalls and its advantages.

Danninotclare (discuss • contribs) 18:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Comment

 * A fairly well-written entry, but with some grammatical slips dotted throughout, so please take extra care with proofreading prior to submission. It reflected some of the themes and concerns of the module e.g. persona and online identity, but you really ought to have made a more explicit connection to relevant reading. Would have liked to have seen better use of wiki markup to create links to relevant materials.


 * A post of this standard roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor, but at the lower end because of the factors cited above:
 * 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.

RE: Comments on others’ work

 * These are on time and ok - however, they are a little on the short side and could do with development in terms of content, scope and reference to module themes. Remember that your comments on other people's work is weighted as heavily as your own post when it comes to grades. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 14:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

This is very interesting and topical issue. The idea that a person can create a perfect looking online life whilst their real life crumbles around them is quite a concerning thought. It's clear that these "perfect" lives which people try to strive for are so far from the real thing and yet so many people are being sucked into the idea that the life they project online needs to look a certain way no matter how they actually live.

As you say there are growing numbers of people across all social media platforms who are managing to make careers due to their online personas. The fact that people are making money from what could be described as a scripted version of them-self is something that I, and I'm sure you do to, find alarming. Clarenotdanni (discuss • contribs) 11:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki exercise 2
Social media is increasingly becoming a central part of most people's life. To post pictures, opinions and funny videos. It has become an outlet of interests, vanity and self-expression. The more likes someone has on a post or photo the more important and loved they feel. Personally, I have a Facebook, Instagram and Twitter each for different reasons. Facebook I use socially it is where I occasionally put photos up but mostly like other friends posts. I tend to not put a lot up on Facebook purely for the effort it takes though I do allow others to tag me and I do post things myself. I post if a life- changing event happens or wishing someone a happy birthday as it is an easier method of contact. I use Instagram to see what friends that I don't see that often are doing and how their lives are changing and Twitter I use to gather information. I do not tweet on my account but follow influential people in the media to account for what is happening around me. Though I do not use social media as much as anyone of my age normally does; my online footprint is large. I do not tell my 'life-story' but by connecting posts of those surrounding me ,or post that I rarely put up, my life os an open book. Social media seems to have become a necessity and it is a suprise when someone doesnt have at least one.

The view that social media is a necessity in today's society is interesting and in some ways is true. It is nearly impossible nowadays to meet someone, particularly within the younger generations, who does not have any form of social media account. Even with being active on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter it still seems like a rather small amount compared to many people who are also active on Snapchat, Vine and Tumblr for example. Yet Facebook, Twitter and Instagram are arguably the most useful forms of social media. There are more and more people who are making careers through their Instagram accounts and Twitter is well known for being used by the youth as the most common way to access the news and to keep up to date. However it is important when using social media to put some controls in place so that even if Instagram is rarely used and Twitter is for following others rather than posting anything, the lack of privacy on social media is an ever increasing worry facing many users today who worry that their online footprint is increasing exponentially. Clarenotdanni (discuss • contribs) 03:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia 3 : Information overload
The major thing that Technology has done is ,arguably, change our culture. With technology reaching into normal peoples' hands it has effected the way we contact each other. One of the most simple and fundamental instincts that a human has is to reach others as we are animals that like to live with others of its kind. Our culture changed when had access to technology. Our way of contact is now not only face to face but also messaging, texting, contact through photographs and Social media etc. With such easy access to others we have gained an 'always on' culture. Raymond Williams a theorist on culture and the effect technology can have on society said that "there is nothing in a particular technology which guarantees the cultural or social outcome it will have." The always on culture effects our everyday life with instant; access to others, information and advertising it means that even our idea of courtesy has changed. If someone does not contact you within a certain amount of time (when you have instant access) it considered rude. In A Private Sphere: Democracy in a Digital Age by Zizi Papacharissi it talks about how the private and public boundaries are slowly becoming one and we are now never truly alone. Solitude is not something very common in this digital age which can feel very intrusive. Personally I find this very distracting and constantly ponder how much I could get done without social media or the internet. How many books would William Shakespeare have written if he had Candy Crush on hand? Having always been used to technology and the it effects rather than dealing with it I find that I am used to the readily available information and contact. My decisions are hindered as it take up more of my life as a distraction, and often a procrastination, but it also gives access to information quicker saving time. In a way you could say it changes our perspective of time as well as our culture.

Wikipedia 4 : Reflection on wikibooks
"The basis and goal of collective intelligence is the mutual recognition and enrichment of individuals rather than a cult of fetishized or hypostatized communities." (1999:13) This was a quote from Pierre Levy which stuck with me after a lecture about collective intelligence. Theorists such as: David Gauntlett and his "Web 2.0 and the political value to collective activity", Howard Rheingold and the power struggle of technology, and Jaron Lanier and his "Wikipedia goblins where also spoke of but the quote from Pierre Levy was interesting. It talks about how the collective intelligence should not just merge the community into a makeshift hive but should use the collectives individuals intelligence, opinion and differences to allow growth on a project.

I kept this in mind when contributing and becoming part of a collective myself and I think it worked out well. There were a few who took it upon them self to become the 'queen bee' of the project but this was for obvious reasons. Rather than the project being for the growth of knowledge or for fun it was for points. Though I did find this method of assessment to be a lot more interesting than an essay it had its hiccups. The more you contributed meant the more you scored for your assessment so rather than the content being the main concern it was the quantity of what you said. Rather than a group project it felt more of an every man for himself situation. You wanted to write and contribute more than your group members and there wasn't much team spirit. We weere also in two groups: the group that we where assigned to of four and also the groups who were working on the same projects as we where. Whenever any of the other groups wrote too much or wrote something you where thinking of writing you got upset. It became a competition.

However, I do agree than the level of quality and quantity of the project would not have been possible without it being a group. Our ideas did not merge into one as we had different views and opinions throughout the project. There was questions on the talk page that other participants answered : we helped each other in our endeavor to finish the assignment. On the last day of the wiki project everyone was helping each other with no hidden agenda of points but rather making sure everyone could do their part on time and to good quality.

Wikipedia itself though a fun and interesting way to collect information is flawed for me in a few ways. Wikipedia is a group project but your group can change anything that you put online. Anyone can change anything you put online allowing for disagreements and also facts on Wikipedia could be incorrect. Referring to the Wikipedia project we where all very polite and asked if we would like to add anything or change anything however this was a pre picked subject and not a subject that would bring about passion in every user. If it was and someone wrote something incorrect about a subject that you were more passionate about (plus them being just a user rather than a person) you might get more heated. It links into Jaron Lanier and his Wikipedia goblins. On Laniers own wikipedia page was incorrect and he has been trying to fix and change it but every time he would someone changes it back. This allows for error in the growth of knowledge and information in the group collective. Again referring back to the Wiki project I would say that it was a success and everyone made sure their facts where corrects before uploading but this does not say that their are no errors.

Comments
Hello Danni, this is a very well written piece and I find it very interesting to hear from you and your group's perspective and experience, and I find myself agreeing and relating to what you have expressed in here. I agree when you say that as a concept it was a good idea but it had its hiccups. I personally found that as a group it worked much better than it would have individually just because of the sheer amount of research and of the collective intelligence shown in the discussion pages. I did not express this in my entry, but I think you are quite right: while editing and contributing to other's writings is the whole point of this collaborative experience, it kind of defeats the whole idea of and right to freedom of expression because an idea you may have wanted to express in the article could have been muted, censored and deleted by another user. Of course it is also possible to freely express your dissatisfaction in the discussion page and perhaps merge an agreement with said user, but as you said it could also create a hostile environment and possible arguments, which absolutely defeat the process of contributing and the very idea or spirit of the Wikibooks main 'pillars'. Because of this, I feel like the critical concept of The Civic Web (particularily as described in those two articles by Dahlgren and Banaji and Buckingham) as described in your article can be seen reflected in the main concepts of  Wikibooks, but Wikibooks cannot possibly fully encompass or allow for every aspect of the Civic Web. --Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 12:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
There are a few edits to the chapter content in the final day of the project (and an additional edit made the day before – biographical detail and so info from the wiki page of Feenberg) which suggests that you hadn't really engaged the subject matter in the critical manner necessary at this level. The same added to the section on Murphy and Potts, with a short biographical note, and a direct quotation, which doesn't do much. You list a number of books that Feenberg has written, in the final moments of the project period – whilst this is useful for reference purposes, a first-class contribution would have discussed the ideas that Feenberg writes about for each book. Had you given yourself the entire project period, you could have gone some way to doing this.

Wiki Exercises


 * 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.

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives a satisfactory brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a fair range of concepts associated with your subject, and an effort to deliver critical definitions. There is evidence that you draw from relevant literature and scholarship, however your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is slightly lost, perhaps due to a variable depth of understanding the subject matter or over reliance on rote learning. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a somewhat circumscribed 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 a variable standard (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Satisfactory engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Reflexive, creative and fairly well-managed use of discussion pages using deployment of somewhat limited judgement relating to key issues, concepts or procedures

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 15:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)