User talk:Digimedcult

User created for a university project on exploration into digital media. Digimedcult (discuss • contribs) 13:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: Online Visibility and Footprint
With a quick look at my phone, I can find an abundance of social media apps: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Youtube, Tinder, Reddit, Twitter, Tumblr, Pinterest, Whatsapp, Spotify, etc… Some of these I use daily, some almost never. Most likely there are even more accounts on different platforms that I have forgotten about. On some social media I have got multiple accounts running. All in all, there is a lot of data about me out there online. I have always tried to be careful about sharing information online. There are two ways I protect my privacy that are dependent on how I use a specific social medium. Firstly, a lot of the apps I use daily, like Facebook and Snapchat, are for interaction with people I know in real like. On these accounts I share my name, pictures of myself and other content that I am comfortable letting people see. I am only comfortable with this because the accounts are set to private so that I personally have to approve of everyone who wishes to see the content. These accounts are also not discoverable by searching for my name or the attached email addresses. The rest of my accounts are public. On these accounts I share content that is not aimed at my immediate social circle but more towards anyone whose interest it piques. The public accessibility of the accounts requires different methods of privacy protection. I run them under a made up handle, I have not linked them to other social media and I do not post my name, pictures or anything that could attach the account to myself specifically. I manage them under anonymity and mainly communicate with other anonymous net-users. I believe the latter way of using social media relates closely to the operation of Wikipedia and similar platforms. Wikipedia is based around anonymous web-users working together online, without ever having met, due to shared interests. These kind of platforms allow people to create an online persona and organise digital networks. In fact, not only do they allow it, but for these sites it is necessary that the users feel a sense of community that endorses creating free content. I believe this sense of community arises from the distinction between users’ real-world and digital persona. While I use my private accounts to communicate with my friends, the anonymous public accounts connect me with the greater user base of that site and allow me to fully explore my interests. Digimedcult (discuss • contribs) 12:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: To What extent are my online and offline personalities aligned?
Identity is generally defined as the qualities, beliefs, associated groups and personality that make a person, so essentially the way that person behaves and presents themselves. However, the exact definition is debated, as identity is also seen as being fluent and dependent on context and audience (Goffman, 1959). The general groups one relates to (e.g. gender, race and nationality) affect identity. However, online these do not matter as much as the user can create exactly the avatar and persona they want.

Online identity is a social identity established in online communities or a constructed presentation of oneself. How much an individual wishes to reveal about themselves modifies their presented identity. Some platforms, like Facebook, aim for the user to represent an accurate presentation of themselves, with their real name and details. Be that as it may, the Internet allows for full anonymity and many people opt to create completely fabricated personas for themselves, with a false name and avatar. This relates to the concept of the mask by Dorian Wiszniewski and Richard Coyne which is how online identities are created by the user by making deliberate decisions. This designing process of a digital self ranges from omitting a few details to structuring full blown alter egos. The mask works almost as a safety net for the user. Wiszniewski and Coyne believe the perceived online personality compensates for inner fears and insecurieties.

Relating this to my own experience, I first thought the person I present on my private social network accounts falls closely to who I am outside of the digital sphere. This is due to the fact that on these accounts I interact with people I have met before and share events from my life. I imagined the accounts being more of an extension of my offline self. However, upon further thought, I must acknowledge distinctions between my online and offline self. Due to the limitations of social media and social norms, there is a lot of content in my life that I do not and would not share. It is impossible to immortalise every event in your life digitally, so shared content is handpicked by the user. Failures and misfortunes are things that rarely get shown publically to the world. My online self, as they often tend to be, is a more of an enhanced, idealised version of who I am offline. That is the mask I put on behind the screen.

While these identities differ slightly, they are internally linked, both feeding each other. If one was to peruse to the past of my online activities, they would find the content and my behaviour very uncharacteristic. This is due to just simply interests changing with age. As the person I am in real life has developed over time, so has my online persona. As a teenager I was very timid and rarely dared to venture from the mainstream. The content I posted was very generic and trendy, material that was easily accessible to anyone. I was more concerned with my amount of followers and friends, as I wanted to construct an image of myself as a popular. The way I behaved could be seen as a mask hiding insecurities. Having matured, my number of followers ceased to concern me and instead I put more weight on my content aligning with my interests. It is difficult to say what direction the relationship between my online and offline identity goes, as they seem to enforce each other. The concept of blended identity discusses this reciprocal interaction between identities. My digital persona has developed alongside my real world one as I have adjusted my behaviour to match who I feel I am. On the other hand implementing a certain perception of myself on the Internet converts into confidence to be that idealised version of myself in real life as well. Digimedcult (discuss • contribs) 17:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments
Hi! I agree with the points you made and shared a similar point of view in my own discussion that there is an interaction between the online and offline self and they often enforce and modify each other over time. However, I rather focused on the interaction with the online community and people in it and its effect on my online activities, whereas your focus lies more on the individual level. I wanted to ask you a couple questions relating to both of our discussions just out of curiosity as to hear what is your point of view. You mentioned that your online activity used to be more concerned with others' views of you, in what ways (if any) do you think your online persona currently reflects this kind of social pressure? And do you think the limitations of social norms inhibit you from fully expressing your offline self (or are the things you don't currently share not that crucial to as what you consider to contribute to your identity)? Do you consider there to be more social pressure on not sharing certain things now than compared to when you felt the pressure to share things in order to be "popular"? Digitaldagmar (discuss • contribs) 18:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I found your piece interesting and thought-provoking, especially when mentioning that our online identities reveal a lot about who we are in real life. I agree that users can often take advantage of online platforms to compensate for something that they believe to be lacking in their reality. I also believed that my online identity closely matched the way I present myself in real life, although I now realize that my social media profiles present only specific facets of my life and my personality that I choose to share. The idea of our online identities changing and possibly maturing alongside ourselves in real life is something that I find interesting and also mentioned in my own discussion. Chiarabpapo (discuss • contribs) 11:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 3#: Annotated Bibliography Exercise
===Hart, J. K., and K. Martinez (2015), Toward an environmental Internet of Things, Earth and Space Science, 2,194–200, doi:10.1002/2014EA000044. Accessed at https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/2014EA000044 ===

This paper explores the potential of green Internet of Things by reviewing and building upon current research. The aim is to present how sensory networks and digital technology can be used for the benefit of the environment, while also reviewing issues and limitations. The paper investigates different types of sensory networks and, due to its heavy technical terminology, might require some background knowledge about sensory networks. The paper is relevant to the topic of Digital Media and the Environment, as IoT is an essential part of the digital realm and has been criticised for having a damaging effect on the environment. This study can be used in our essay to discuss how IoT and digital media can be harnessed for the benefit of the environment. Digimedcult (discuss • contribs) 13:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Collaborative Essay Critical Evaluation – What ARE Wikis?
Wikipedia defines Wikis as a website that users can work on and edit collaboratively, which Wikipedia itself is an example of. Wikipedia and its sister projects (collectively Wiki*edia) were created by the Wikimedia Foundation with the mission of mobilising net users to create and spread information that can be easily accessed worldwide. Founders of the Wikimedia Foundation believe in the free circulation of information and when creating Wikipedia, the first of their projects, they visioned an educational platform curated voluntarily by its users. The Wiki*edia sites were and still are doubted by many, since in theory, an open-to-all information platform lacking any expert authority should quickly fall prey to pranksters and vandals. However, while Wiki*edias reliability is still contested and could not pass as an academic source, some studies have found it to be quite trustworthy. Giles (2005) found that a collection of scientific articles on Wikipedia were almost equally accurate as edited encyclopaedias. Despite the nay-sayers, Wikipedia seems to thriving with almost 6 million articles written for the English Wikipedia. In this essay I will examine what elements drive the success of Wiki*edia projects, including the nature of contemporary Internet culture and the Wikimedia Foundations own principles and relate them to my own experiences as a creator. The basis of voluntary participation for Wiki*edia projects relates to the concepts of cognitive surplus and the participatory essence of Web 2.0. Clay Shirky (2010) explains cognitive surplus as the result of people channelling their excessive free time into building creative projects, which sometimes have civic value for the entire community. In the current information age, this can mean projects such as producing a Wikibook in cooperation with others. One appealing aspect of joining in such a project is the low barrier that the Internet sets for taking part. Wiki*edia projects are also a typical example of what Web 2.0 has to offer. Web 2.0 is a term for describing the current state of the Internet, which is widely based on participation. If the Internet in its infancy was considered to just provide content for users to take in, Web 2.0 endorses creating content. Users have graduated from just consumers to so called prosumers, producing content for the same platform they themselves take advantage of daily. It can be argued that a key factor that combats vandalism and prank entries is the sense of community users find on the platform. It seems like building a community online would be hardeer when members are robbed of physical interaction, but the same principles abide. McMillan and Chavis outlined the building blocks for constituting a sense of community as: While Wiki*edia platforms do not require signing up, it is possible and creates a feeling of membership. Users are also freely allowed to add content and edit existing content, so they have influence over what is produced for the page. On a platform like Wikibooks I found the last two qualities are mainly achieved through the active communication between users on the discussion page. Fulfilment of needs refers to psychological needs of a person, like feeling valued. On the discussion page users can give positive feedback and support on each other’s work exchange ideas, thus promoting a sense of acceptance. The positive communication and investment into the project also establishes a shared emotional connection. The defining quality of Wiki*edia platforms is the trust in its users and absence of limiting authority. The Wikimedia Foundation actively protects the rights and privacy of its users, so anyone can feel comfortable to contribute. The foundation has also made it its principle to fight against censorship by refusing to delete content when requested by different authorities and protecting its content from censoring governments by utilising HTTPS and other protocols. By fiercely advocating for universal access to knowledge, the foundation remains a trailblazer and an example of what the netizens can accomplish in the future.
 * 1) 	Membership
 * 2) 	Influence
 * 3) 	Integration and fulfilment of needs
 * 4) 	Shared emotional connection

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:
 * although nothing in evidence that could be considered substantial by the above criteria, nonetheless there are a number of smaller contribs that are important to the development of the essay, and appear throughout the project period.

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
 * Good

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * Clear delegation of tasks
 * Satisfactory
 * Clearly labelled sections and subsections
 * Satisfactory
 * Contributions are all signed
 * Satisfactory

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) 15:28, 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:


 * Excellent. Among other things, these entries will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. They will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. They will address the assignment tasks in a thoughtful way. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts. They will be informed by serious reading and reflection, are likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.


 * This (very good!) work is at the lower end of this particular grade band, so there’s maybe room for improvement here. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets.


 * You make good use of the wiki functionality and markup, and perhaps developing this would have gone some way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would make a difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are especially good. I like that you have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!). You also 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). Good work.

General:
 * Reading and research: evidence of critical engagement with set materials; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material – all very good.


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


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)