User talk:Digitaldagmar

I am a second year Film & Media student and currently part of a class group project on Wikibooks.Digitaldagmar (discuss • contribs) 13:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

To what extent are my online and offline identities aligned?
Our identities change in response to our experiences and interactions with one another and the rest of the world. This change in one’s self-image seems to be evident offline as well as online, and more so now as the convergence of technologies blurs the lines between the two. As a kid the main form of online communication I had with my friends was via Microsoft Live Messenger. That was the way to communicate without having to worry about the cost of texting and you could always log in to see who is available. The conversations started once both were online and once the conversation ended, we would notify each other “I am logging off now”. It was an honest form of communication similar to our conversations when we were talking face-to-face. Now, 10 years later, I cannot remember the last time I told someone I’m logging off or even just simply logging off. Online we come across constant criticism, judgement as well as admiration and support from a large actual or imagined audience. Whether that is directed to us or someone else these kinds of interactions create new spaces for self-reflection and therefore identity development. Due to the convergence of media and technologies it gets easier to blur the lines of reality and the online world. When you open your phone almost every single app and social media account is ready to access without separate logging in process. The data that technologies collect is everywhere and functions an additional pair of eyes gazing over us. To an extent as the media we use becomes a representation of our identity, our corporeal bodies become the extension of our online identities (| Ibrahim, 2018). As the technology develops and our activities become more personalised, we become to feel that the internet knows us as well as our closest friend (|, Turkle, 2011). As we manage our online identities through adding friends, posting pictures, updating personal information and interact with the actual as well as imagined audiences our identities become performative (| Ibrahim, 2018). One is “always on”, not only in the sense that one is always logged in and available, but also in terms of one’s offline behaviour. We become to feel the need to always put on the best versions of ourselves and we are overly aware of the fact that we are always judged and critiqued in one way or another. Changes in online activity often correlate with changes in life-style, relationships or sometimes you just want every single picture to match the same colour scheme. All of these somehow contribute to our identity, the self-image, and what it is that communicates who we are. My online-self has changed throughout the years due to changes in audiences and general awareness of who sees the content I post and what should these people know about me. The content I post is heavily influenced by the “feedback” I receive through comments and likes. This awareness demonstrates the notion of a “glass-house society”, where observing the self being consumed by others becomes evident to the formation of an online self (| Ibrahim, 2018). Currently, my social media presence is highly restricted to images, and factors discussed before have all contributed to how I have decided to change my online identity. Digitaldagmar (discuss • contribs) 15:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments
None. Digitaldagmar (discuss • contribs) 13:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography Exercise (Part B)
Digital Culture and the Environment

Jokinen, P., Malaska, P. Kaivo-oja, J., (1998). The Environment In an ‘Information Society’: A transition stage towards more sustainable development?. Futures, 30(6), 485-498. Retrieved from https://ac.els-cdn.com/S0016328798000548/1-s2.0-S0016328798000548-main.pdf?_tid=26b56b04-f8c9-4160-861d-ab7bbfbdd3ce&acdnat=1553087335_2ea7681caeab76a76d144766efd19377

This article by Jokinen, Malaska and Kaivo-oja argues that the relationship between information society and environmental issues is complex and controversial and is made so by the interaction of opposing scientific and economic discourses. According to the authors the choices within a society should be based on societal ideals, value considerations and ethical discussions, instead of being based on technical considerations made by a limited circle of technological experts who tend to possess technology-optimistic or-deterministic ideas. They discuss the notion and development of an ‘information society’ in detail by considering its different scientific, technological as well as socio-political implications. The article provides figures demonstrating the counter effect of dematerialisation by the increase in energy consumption through the increased demand of technology. Overall, the two main points debated by Jokinen, Malaska and Kaivo-oja are that the lack of information society inhibits the access to knowledge and information, therefore not supporting sustainability, and secondly that the development of information society can easily increase the environmental stress due to the ‘rebound effect’ caused by an increased demand, energy consumption and economic growth. This article is effective as a starting point for discussion, however the arguments are slightly outdated since much research and consideration has been put into this since the publication of the article in 1998. The authors do emphasize that more theoretical and empirical studies need to be conducted in order to properly approach this issue. Digitaldagmar (discuss • contribs) 15:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Collaborative Essay Critical Evaluation - What ARE Wikis?
Wiki is most often described as an open-access hypertextual system in which information is shared and stored, creating a unique form of communication between the community and content (Ravid, Kalman, Rafaeli, 2008). The Wiki as a platform allows each person to edit and share information and contribute to a conversation with other users on pages such as "talk" on Wikipedia and “discussion” on Wikibooks. As a class we created a community within one of the Wiki’s technologies, Wikibooks, in which the members participated in collaborative research, constructive feedback and editing of a book page. A community that shared content through annotated bibliographies, comments and presentations of new ideas, on a common digital platform. This provided first hand experience in participation in educational process, research and demonstration of concepts such as online visibility, online community and digital commons. Contribution on a public platform, like Wikibooks, requires awareness of who the information reaches. This is regardless the illusion of privacy that comes when responding to a single person’s comment or posting an assignment to be graded by a professor. In our class project we used the discussion to introduce our ideas and concepts to our classmates, however that everyone with an internet connection can read, assess and contribute to. We as contributors feel the sense of ownership of the edits we do and information we share, although on a platform like Wiki, the content or commons "belong simultaneously to all and none of their users"(Gutiérrez, 2018, p.1439). Although the users on Wiki have the possibility to be somewhat concealed by their username, providing a sense of anonymity, they develop an online identity completely under their control that becomes very public and exposed. As an example, based on a list of contributions available to anyone to view every single person in the class has developed a persona that presumably for most is the more idealised, and in this case academic and perhaps intelligent, version of themselves.

This leads to further consideration of whether this open-access, easy to edit platform that offers room for endless ideas and community building, is indeed as "free" in terms of of online | emancipation as we might think. Porter defined online community as "an aggregation of individuals or business partners who interact around a shared interest, where the interaction is at least partially supported and/or mediated by technology and guided by some protocols or norms" (2004). Drawing attention especially to her notion regarding the community's essence to be guided by some protocols or norms. In addition to the social pressure from the content being public and being judged by anyone, Wiki does provide minimum guidelines mainly regarding civil online behaviour. Therefore, as some social restrictions still apply, I would not consider wiki platforms to be able to establish full emancipation. As mentioned before, it is not only the guidelines that Wiki administrators themselves put out, but also the overall pressure of conformity with the community that is in some level always implied. --Digitaldagmar (discuss • contribs) 11:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

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:
 * Excellent. Among other things, contributions 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 formatting, 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 and transparent way on the Discussion Pages. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts, justifying decision-making with transparency. 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 as well as for fellow researchers collaborating. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.

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:
 * Consistent contributions made pretty much throughout the project period. Many of these classed as substantial according to the above criteria. The frequency, volume, and quality of these increase as the project moved into the second half. Some really good engagement here!

Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages
 * Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration
 * Excellent
 * Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay
 * Excellent
 * Evidence of peer-review of others’ work
 * Excellent

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

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.
 * Excellent

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 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 work is at the lower end of this grade band (although it’s a high grade band!), so there’s a little 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 do make fairly good use of wiki markup and formatting, throughout the profolio. Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup may have helped to improve creativity, 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 very 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!) and also that you have 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). Keep this up!

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


 * 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 – all very good/excellent.


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)